Computerized method and system for determining the contribution of defenses to premises liability for an accident

ABSTRACT

A computer-implemented method and system for estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability is provided. In one embodiment, a set of characteristics of an accident may be provided to a computer system. A contribution of the defense may be determined from at least one of the characteristics of the accident. In one embodiment, a characteristic may include a location of the accident. The defense may selected from a group of one or more defenses.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention generally relates to processing transactions inthe insurance industry. More particularly, the present invention relatesto computer implemented systems and methods for estimation of liabilityfor an accident on a premises.

2. Description of the Related Art

A typical premises accident claims organization may face a number ofchallenges in processing claims. Some of these challenges may includeassessment of liability, threat of litigation, and experience level ofclaims adjusters. A premises accident claims organization may add valueto the liability assessment process in a number of ways that representan opportunity to produce a solution that enhances the liabilityassessment process and the effectiveness of the adjuster.

Assessment of liability is one important challenge facing a claimsorganization. It is believed that a large percentage of premisesaccident claims may be assessed at 100% liability against the insuredwhen the claimant may actually share in the fault. While it may bedifficult to pinpoint exact reasons for this practice among claimsadjusters, several likely factors influencing the tendency to assess100% liability against the insured include: ineffective negotiation,large case loads, inadequate time to effectively assess liability, and adesire to settle claims quickly to avoid litigation.

In general, claimants tend to have a litigious nature. In addition,claimant counsel may typically be present during negotiations.Therefore, claims adjusters may need to rigorously investigate thecharacteristics of the premises accident scene, the duties of theinsured, and the contributing actions of the claimant before assessingliability.

The experience level of claims adjusters is typically low due to a lackof longevity in the position. Over the years, a dramatic shortening ofthe training regimen for most new claims adjusters has tended to makethe claims adjuster less effective than his or her predecessor. Inaddition, the lack of experienced claims adjusters to advise and teachthe newcomers worsens the situation. New claims adjusters may not be asknowledgeable in claims adjusting practices and the laws of theirjurisdiction as are the senior claims adjusters. Consequently, claimsadjusters may make “best guess” assessments. A lack of trained andexperienced claims adjusters may tend to produce an inadequate and/orinequitable assessment process.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Described herein are various embodiments of a computer implementedmethod for estimating liability in an accident. In one embodiment, acomputer-implemented method of estimating liability for an accident on apremises may include providing to a computer system a set ofcharacteristics relating to an accident. The negligence of an insuredmay be determined from at least one of the characteristics. Acontribution of one or more defenses to the liability may be determinedfrom at least one of the characteristics. The applicability of one ormore bars to liability may be determined from at least one of thecharacteristics.

In certain embodiments, negligence of an insured may be determined fromclaimant status, duties of an insured to a claimant, breach of duty, andcausation. Claimant status, duties of an insured to a claimant, breachof duty, and causation may be determined from at least one of thecharacteristics relating to the accident. A value of liability may beestimated, which is based on the breach of duty, the causation, thedefenses, and the bars.

One embodiment of a method of determining claimant status may includeproviding to a computer system a set of characteristics relating to anaccident. The characteristics of the accident may then be evaluated. Theclaimant status may be determined from the characteristics of theaccident.

In one embodiment, a method of determining breach of duty may includeproviding a set of characteristics to a computer system relating to anaccident. One or more questions may be evaluated using at least one ofthe characteristics. Breach of duty may be associated with one or morecombinations of answers to the one or more questions. Breach of duty maybe determined from the evaluated questions.

One embodiment of a method of determining causation of a claimant's harmmay include providing to a computer system a set of characteristicsrelating to an accident. In certain embodiments, determining causationof the claimant's harm may include determining cause in fact and/orproximate cause of an accident from at least one of the characteristics.

In an embodiment, a computer-implemented method of estimating acontribution of a defense to liability for an accident on a premises mayinclude providing to a computer system a set of characteristics relatingto the accident. The contribution may be determined from thecharacteristics of the accident.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A better understanding of the present invention may be obtained when thefollowing detailed description of the preferred embodiment is consideredin conjunction with the following drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 is a network diagram of a wide area network that is suitable forimplementing various embodiments;

FIG. 2 is an illustration of a typical computer system that is suitablefor implementing various embodiments;

FIG. 3 is a flow chart of a method of premises liability estimationaccording to one embodiment;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating determination of claimant statusaccording to one embodiment;

FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating determination of breach of duty foran invitee according to one embodiment;

FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating determination of breach of duty fora licensee according to one embodiment;

FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating determination of breach of duty fora trespasser according to one embodiment;

FIG. 8 a is a flow chart illustrating the determination of cause in factaccording to one embodiment;

FIG. 8 b is a flow chart illustrating the determination of proximatecause according to one embodiment;

FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the alcohol anddrug use defense according to one embodiment;

FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse alternate path defense according to one embodiment;

FIG. 11 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse due care defense according to one embodiment;

FIG. 12 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse due care defense to defective vision according to one embodiment;

FIG. 13 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse due care defense to claimant's improper footwear according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 14 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse due care defense to claimant's inattention according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 15 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse due care defense to claimant's pace according to one embodiment;

FIG. 16 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse due care defense to claimant's walking aid according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 17 is flow chart illustrating the application of the failure toheed warning defense according to one embodiment;

FIG. 18 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the impliedassumption of risk defense according to one embodiment; and

FIG. 19 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure tokeep lookout defense according to one embodiment.

While the invention is susceptible to various modifications andalternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way ofexample in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. Itshould be understood, however, that the drawings and detaileddescription thereto are not intended to limit the invention to theparticular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is tocover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within thespirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appendedclaims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SEVERAL EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 1 illustrates a wide area network (WAN) according to oneembodiment. WAN 102 is a network that spans a relatively largegeographical area. The Internet is an example of WAN 102. WAN 102includes a plurality of computer systems which are interconnectedthrough one or more networks. Although one particular configuration isshown in FIG. 1, WAN 102 may include a variety of heterogeneous computersystems and networks interconnected in a variety of ways, and which runa variety of software applications.

One or more local area networks (LANs) 104 may be coupled to WAN 102.LAN 104 is a network that spans a relatively small area. Typically, LAN104 may be confined to a single building or group of buildings. Eachnode (i.e., individual computer system or device) on LAN 104 may haveits own CPU with which it executes programs. In addition, each node maybe able to access data and devices anywhere on LAN 104. LAN 104, thus,may allow many users to share devices (e.g., printers) and/or datastored on file servers. LAN 104 may be characterized by a variety oftypes of topology (i.e., the geometric arrangement of devices on thenetwork), of protocols (i.e., the rules and encoding specifications forsending data and whether the network uses a peer-to-peer orclient/server architecture), and of media (e.g., twisted-pair wire,coaxial cables, fiber optic cables, radio waves).

Each LAN 104 may include a plurality of interconnected computer systemsand optionally one or more other devices such as one or moreworkstations 110 a, one or more personal computers 112 a, one or morelaptop or notebook computer systems 114, one or more server computersystems 116, and one or more network printers 118. As illustrated inFIG. 1, an example LAN 104 may include computer systems 110 a, 112 a,114, and 116, and printer 118. LAN 104 may be coupled to other computersystems and/or other devices and/or other LANs 104 through WAN 102.

One or more mainframe computer systems 120 may be coupled to WAN 102. Asshown, mainframe 120 may be coupled to a storage device or file server124 and mainframe terminals 122 a, 122 b, and 122 c. The mainframeterminals 122 a, 122 b, and 122 c may be configured to access datastored in the storage device or file server 124 coupled to or includedin mainframe computer system 120.

WAN 102 may also include computer systems connected to WAN 102individually and not through LAN 104, such as for purposes of example,workstation 110 b and personal computer 112 b. For example, WAN 102 mayinclude computer systems that are geographically remote and connected toeach other through the Internet.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of computer system 150, which may besuitable for implementing various embodiments of a system and method forassessment of premises liability of an accident on a premises byconsidering the characteristics that describe an accident combined withexpert knowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters. Computersystem 150 typically includes components such as CPU 152 with anassociated memory medium such as floppy disks 160. The memory medium maystore program instructions for computer programs. The programinstructions may be executable by CPU 152. Computer system 150 mayfurther include a display device such as monitor 154, an alphanumericinput device such as keyboard 156, and a directional input device suchas mouse 158. Computer system 150 may be operable to implementassessment of premises liability of an accident on a premises byconsidering the characteristics that describe an accident combined withexpert knowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters.

Computer system 150 may include a memory medium on which computerprograms according to various embodiments may be stored. The term“memory medium” generally refers to an installation medium, e.g., CD-ROMor floppy disks 160, a computer system memory such as DRAM, SRAM, EDORAM, Rambus RAM, etc., or a non-volatile memory such as a magneticmedia, e.g., a hard drive or optical storage. The memory medium may alsoinclude other types of memory, or combinations thereof. In addition, thememory medium may be located in a first computer in which the programsare executed or may be located in a second different computer, whichconnects to the first computer over a network. In the latter instance,the second computer may provide the program instructions to the firstcomputer for execution. Also, computer system 150 may take variousforms, including a personal computer system, mainframe computer system,workstation, network appliance, Internet appliance, personal digitalassistant (“PDA”), television system, or other device. In general, theterm “computer system” may be broadly defined to encompass any devicehaving a processor, which executes instructions from a memory medium.

The memory medium may preferably store a software program or programsfor assessment of liability in an accident by considering thecharacteristics that describe such an accident combined with expertknowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters. The softwareprogram(s) may be implemented in any of various ways including, but notlimited to, procedure-based techniques, component-based techniques,and/or object-oriented techniques. For example, the software program maybe implemented using ActiveX controls, C++ objects, JavaBeans, MicrosoftFoundation Classes (MFC), browser-based applications (e.g., Javaapplets), traditional programs, or other technologies or methodologiesas desired. A CPU such as host CPU 152 executing code and data from thememory medium may include a means for creating and executing thesoftware program or programs according to the methods and/or flowdiagrams as described herein.

As used herein, “premises liability” is tort liability of a landowner orpossessor of land to another party for conditions or activities on thepremises that caused injury to the party.

As used herein, a “tort” refers to a civil wrong for which a remedy maybe obtained, usually in the form of damages.

As used herein, “liability” is defined as an amount for which a personor party is responsible or obligated because of negligence of the personor party. Liability may be expressed in a ratio or percentage (e.g.,there is a total of 100% liability that can be attributed to persons,parties, or other factors such as weather, etc.). In another embodiment,liability may be expressed as a dollar amount. In an embodiment,liability may be expressed as a range of percentage liability.Expressing liability as a range of percentage liability may provide aclaims adjuster with information that may be useful in negotiating anacceptable settlement to a claim.

As used herein, a “premises” is a tract of land with its componentparts, such as buildings. Premises may also refer to a building or partof a building, typically, with its appurtenances such as grounds oreasements.

As used herein, a “standard of care,” as it relates to the law ofnegligence, is a degree of care. In states that recognize variations inclaimant status, an invitee may be owed the highest degree of care, areasonable degree of care may be owed to a licensee, and a slight degreeof care may be owed to a trespasser.

As used herein, “duty” refers to a legal disadvantage that is owed ordue to another and that needs to be satisfied. In tort law, a duty is alegal relationship between an actor and other parties arising from astandard of care. The violation of the standard of care subjects theactor to liability. For example, an insured may owe a certain claimantseveral duties with respect to the condition of the insured's premises.Each duty has associated with it a standard of care required of theinsured.

As used herein, “cause in fact” is a cause without which an event wouldnot have occurred.

As used herein, a “proximate cause” refers to a cause that sets inmotion a sequence of events uninterrupted by any superseding causes. Aproximate cause results in an effect, typically foreseeable, such as aninjury that would not otherwise have occurred. A proximate cause of anaccident may be legally sufficient to result in liability.

As used herein, the term “claims adjuster” is an individual employed bya claims organization of an insurance carrier who assesses the liabilityof each party involved in an accident. Gathering the characteristicsrelating to an accident may typically be a task completed by a claimsadjuster. When the claims adjuster has collected some or all of theinformation available, the information may be entered into a computersystem.

As used herein, an “insured” is a landowner or possessor on whosepremises a party claims to have been injured. The insured holds aninsurance policy with a claims organization or insurance carrier. Thepolicy obligates the claims organization or insurance carrier tocompensate the injured party for the portion of the damages suffered bythe injured party that was the fault of the insured.

As used herein, a “jurisdiction” refers to a geographic area withinwhich political or judicial authority may be exercised.

As used herein, the term “claimant” refers to a party alleging injuryarising out of an accident that occurred on an insured's leased or ownedpremises. The claimant seeks compensation for bodily injury and/orproperty damage from a claims organization or insurance carrier of theinsured. The claimant's status may be an invitee, a licensee, a socialguest, a trespasser, or a general claimant. As used herein, an “invitee”refers to a claimant that is on the premises primarily for the benefitof the landowner or possessor of the premises. An invitation to enterthe premises to an invitee by the landowner or possessor may be expressor implied. As used herein, a “licensee” is a claimant on the premisesprimarily for the benefit of the licensee, or the mutual benefit of thelicensee and the landowner or possessor of the premises. As used herein,a “social guest” is a person who is entertained or to whom hospitalityis extended. Generally, tort law treats social guests essentially thesame as licensees. As used herein, a “trespasser” is a person who is onthe premises without permission, express or implied, of the landowner orpossessor of the premises. As used herein, a “general claimant” refersto the claimant status in a jurisdiction that does not recognizevariations in claimant status.

As used herein, the term “contributory negligence” refers to aclaimant's own negligence that played a part in causing the claimant'sinjury. Under contributory negligence doctrine, a claimant's negligencebars the claimant from recovering damages from the landowner orpossessor.

In a “comparative negligence” scheme, a claimant's own negligenceproportionally reduces the damages recoverable by the claimant. Thenegligence of the claimant is not an absolute bar to recovery from thelandowner or possessor. Most states have abolished contributorynegligence doctrine and have adopted instead the comparative negligencescheme.

An “affirmative defense” is a defense made by a landowner or possessorthat does not deny the truth of the allegations against it. Anaffirmative defense provides some other reason, such as contributorynegligence, expiration of a statute of limitations, or insanity, why thelandowner or possessor cannot be held liable. The term “defense,” asused herein, refers to an affirmative defense.

As used herein, “assumption of risk” is a principle that a person whohas taken on the risk of loss, injury, or damage consequently cannotmaintain an action against the party having caused the loss. Injurisdictions where it applies, assumption of risk is an affirmativedefense. When assumption of risk applies, a claimant cannot receivecompensation for injuries from a party that caused the injuries becausethe claimant freely and knowingly assumed the risk of injury. Byassuming the risk of injury, a claimant relieved the party that causedthe loss of the obligation to act with reasonable care. However,assumption of risk has been subsumed by the doctrines of contributory orcomparative negligence in most jurisdictions.

As used herein, “actual notice” is notice expressly and actually givenand brought to a party directly. In addition, actual notice may bepresumed to be received personally because the evidence within theparty's knowledge is sufficient to put him or her on inquiry.

As used herein, “constructive notice” is notice presumed by law to havebeen acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person. For example,if a defect has been visible and apparent for a sufficient length oftime for employees of a business to have discovered and remedied it, thebusiness may be presumed to have constructive notice.

As used herein, a “defense” is an action by a claimant that shifts someor all of the liability from the landowner or possessor to the claimant.

As used herein, a “bar” is a preventive barrier to or the destruction ofa legal action or claim made by a claimant.

As used herein, a “reasonable person” refers to a fictional person withan ordinary degree of reason, prudence, care, foresight, and/orintelligence. A reasonable person's conduct, conclusion, or expectationin relation to a particular circumstance or fact may be used as anobjective standard to measure or determine something, such as theexistence of negligence.

As used herein, generally, “negligence” refers to the failure toexercise the standard of care in a situation that a reasonably prudentperson would have exercised in the same situation. The law of negligencegenerally requires that three conditions be met for the landowner orpossessor to be liable in negligence to a party. The first condition isthat the landowner or possessor had a duty to the party. The duties thata landowner or possessor has to a claimant may depend on the claimantstatus. For example, some jurisdictions (e.g., states) treat eachclaimant status differently in evaluating premises liability whileothers do not. Additionally, it may be important to determine whether aduty had been transferred from the landowner or possessor to a thirdparty. For example, a duty may be transferred from a landowner to arenter in a lease agreement. In such a case, the apparent duty of thelandowner may actually belong to the renter. The second condition forliability in negligence is that the landowner or possessor breached theduty. The third condition is causation, i.e., the breach must be shownto be the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the party's injury.

If the landowner or possessor is found to be liable in negligence to aparty, the liability may be reduced or eliminated by applicabledefenses. In addition, liability may be eliminated if any bars torecovery apply.

In one embodiment, a computer-implemented method of estimating premisesliability for an accident may include providing to a computer system aset of characteristics relating to an accident on a premises. Thecomputer system may first determine negligence of the insured based onat least one of the characteristics. The contribution of one or moredefenses to the liability may then be determined from at least one ofthe characteristics. In addition, the computer system may determine theapplicability of one or more bars to the liability.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart of premises liability estimation on a computersystem according to one embodiment. In step 302, a set ofcharacteristics relating to an accident may be provided to the computersystem. The set of characteristics may include details relating to theaccident.

In step 304 of FIG. 3, the claimant status may be determined from atleast one of the characteristics. FIG. 4 illustrates one embodiment ofdetermining claimant status. The claimant status may be associated withduties and a standard of care.

In step 306, the duties owed by an insured to a claimant may bedetermined. Table 5 lists duties that may be owed by an insured to aclaimant for different claimant status and two jurisdictions.

Decision point 308 in FIG. 3 may include determining whether or notthere was a breach of duty by the insured from at least one of thecharacteristics. The duties owed by an insured to a claimant may becompared to the standard of care exercised by the insured to determinebreach of duty. If there was no breach of any duties owed to theclaimant by the insured, then there may be no premises liability. FIGS.5, 6, and 7 are flow charts that illustrate the determination of breachof duty of an insured to claimants of different claimant status. Tables8, 9, and 10 are tables of questions that correspond to FIGS. 5, 6, and7. Step 309 indicates that there is no liability if there is no breachof duty. If breach of duty is found at decision point 308, causation maybe determined at decision point 310 from at least one of thecharacteristics. Causation may include both cause in fact and proximatecause. Step 311 indicates that there may be no liability if there is nocausation. If causation is found at decision point 310, then the insuredmay be negligent, as shown by step 312.

In step 314, the applicability and contribution of one or more defensesof the insured against the claimant may be determined from at least oneof the characteristics. In addition, the applicability of one or morebars to recovery by the claimant may be determined in step 314. Table 17lists some defenses and bars to recovery. FIGS. 9 to 19 illustrate theapplication of some of the defenses. One or more valid defenses mayresult in the application of either contributory or comparativenegligence doctrine to the claimant.

In step 316, the liability of the insured to the claimant may becalculated. In jurisdictions where comparative negligence applies, theliability of the insured may be reduced or eliminated by applying thedefenses. In addition, applying any one of the bars to recovery mayeliminate liability.

The initial step in a method of premises liability estimation, as shownby step 302 in FIG. 3, may be to provide characteristics relating to theaccident. In one embodiment, the characteristics may include the insuredtype, accident type, premises type, and jurisdiction. Table 1 listsexamples of the insured type, accident type, premises type, andjurisdiction. The insured type may be residential, commercial, orpublic. The number of units in a residence may determine whether arental residence is residential or commercial.

TABLE 1 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS FOR PREMISES LIABILITY CharacteristicTypes Insured Residential, single-family homeowner Residential tenantResidential landlord Commercial owner Commercial tenant Commerciallandlord Public owner Public tenant Public landlord Accident Slip TripFall Security Falling objects Attractive nuisance Vicious animals Toxicexposure Revolving door Premises Floor Stairway Sidewalk Fixture (e.g.,bathtub) Doors Pool Yard Driveway Deck Parking lot Ramp LandscapingUnimproved Land Parks and Recreation Areas Jurisdiction 50 U.S. StatesU.S. territories Foreign States

In one embodiment, characteristics may also include a description of theaccident, accident scene, claimant, injury, and other informationspecific to the accident or accident scene. Characteristics may beobtained as answers to a series of investigative questions. One or moreof the characteristics may be used to determine claimant status, dutiesowed by insured to claimant, breach of duty, causation, defenses, and/orbars. In one embodiment, investigative questions developed for theManson Training Flipchart may be used for a slip, trip, or fallaccident. Slip, trip, or fall accidents may occur on a floor, astairway, or a sidewalk. For example, Manson investigative questions mayinclude the following:

For slip, trip or fall accidents on a floor, examples of investigativequestion that may be asked include:

A. Regarding the Accident

-   1. Date?-   2. Time?-   3. What was the exact location of the accident on the premises?-   4. Does the insured own or rent the premises?-   5. What is the name and address of the injured person?    -   a) What is the injured person's relationship to the insured?    -   b) Why was the injured person on the premises?    -   c) Was the injured person familiar with the premises?-   6. Describe movements of the injured person from the entrance onto    the premises to the accident location.-   7. Describe how the incident occurred.-   8. Determine the exact location on the premises where the incident    occurred.-   9. Describe the condition complained of.-   10. What type of flooring was involved?    -   a) How was the flooring cleaned and maintained?    -   b) When was the flooring last cleaned, and by whom?-   11. Is the area inspected regularly?    -   a) What is the inspection procedure?-   12. What caused the condition?    -   If water or another liquid caused the condition:        -   a) Describe the liquid (e.g., consistency, smell, color,            etc.).        -   b) How did the liquid get there?        -   c) Was weather a factor?        -   d) Was the liquid tracked inside?        -   e) How far from the outside entrance was the location of the            accident?        -   f) Were storm mats in place—size and composition?        -   g) Did the liquid come from other than the insured premises?        -   h) How long had the liquid been there?        -   i) Describe the dimensions of the puddle.        -   j) Were there any warning signs or barriers?        -   k) Were steps taken to clean the liquid prior to the            incident?        -   l) Was the area well lit?        -   m) Was the liquid clearly visible or obvious?        -   n) When was area last inspected before the accident?    -   If a foreign object caused the condition:        -   a) Describe the foreign object (e.g., size, consistency,            etc.).        -   b) Describe the location of the foreign object.        -   c) Was anyone aware of the foreign object?        -   d) How long had the foreign object been there?        -   e) Were any steps taken to alleviate the dangerous            condition?        -   f) Were any warning signs or barriers in place?        -   g) Where did the foreign object come from?    -   If the premises was a store:        -   a) Is the substance (e.g., liquid or foreign object) natural            to the insured business?        -   b) Are there any sweeping records—what is the store's            procedure?        -   c) When was the last inspection of the area and by whom?    -   If waxed floors were involved in the incident:        -   a) When was the floor last waxed?        -   b) By whom?        -   c) With what product?        -   d) Who manufactures the wax?        -   e) Was wax applied according to the manufacturer's            instructions?        -   f) Was an independent contractor involved? If so obtain the            name of the contractor.    -   If floor coverings were involved in the incident:        -   a) What type of floor covering (e.g., carpets, scatter rugs,            paper, etc.)?        -   b) What type of shoes was the injured person wearing at the            time of the incident?    -   If a structural defect was involved in the incident:        -   a) What is the composition of the floor (e.g., wood, cement,            tile, etc.)?        -   b) Was the surface level or sloped?        -   c) If the surface was sloped, to what degree and in what            direction?        -   d) Was the floor smooth, rough, or depressed?        -   e) What were the measurements of the defect?        -   f) Was the defect visible?        -   g) Was the floor sagging or broken?        -   h) How long had the defect been there?        -   i) Was the insured aware of the defect?—If so, for how long?        -   j) Was the injured person familiar with the defect?        -   k) Did the structural defect pre-exist the insured's lease,            or ownership of the premises?        -   l) Had any steps been taken to alleviate the defect?—If so,            describe?            B. Regarding the accident scene-   1. Describe how the fall occurred.-   2. Where was the injured person looking prior to the accident?-   3. Was the injured person talking to anyone?-   4. Was the injured person carrying anything?-   5. Was the injured person in a hurry?-   6. Was the injured person walking or running?-   7. What type of shoes was the injured person wearing?    -   a) Describe heels and soles of the injured person's shoes.-   8. Were any children or animals with the injured person?-   9. What does the injured person allege is responsible for fall?-   10. Does the injured person wear glasses or contact lenses?—If so,    was the injured person wearing them at the time of the accident?    C. Regarding the claimant-   1. Name and address?-   2. Age?-   3. Why was the claimant on the premises?    D. Regarding the injury-   1. If there was an injury, describe it.-   2. Identify the dates and type of treatments received by the injured    person.-   3. Identify doctors, hospitals, etc. that provided treatment to the    injured person.-   4. Is further treatment anticipated?-   5. What is the occupation of the injured person?—Obtain employer,    address, wages, lost time, etc.    E. Regarding other information-   1. Describe what happened after the incident.-   2. Were police called?    -   a) If so, what branch of police responded (e.g., state, local,        etc.)?    -   b) What did they do?-   3. Obtain names and addresses of witnesses.-   4. Was alcohol or medication involved in the incident?    II. For slip, trip, or fall accidents on a stairway, examples of    investigative question that may be asked include:    A. Regarding the accident-   1. Date?-   2. Time?-   3. What was the exact location of the accident on the premises?-   4. What is the injured person's relationship to the insured?-   5. Was the injured person familiar with the premises?    -   a) Why was the injured person on the premises?-   6. Describe the movements of the injured person from the entrance    onto the premises to the accident location.-   7. Describe how the incident occurred.-   8. If weather was a factor, obtain details of the weather    conditions.-   9. Was the injured person going up or down stairs?    -   a) Was the injured person running, walking, and/or carrying        anything?-   10. Were lights on?-   11. What type of shoes was the injured person wearing?-   12. Were any children or animals with the injured person?-   13. How did the injured person fall?-   14. Where was the injured person looking prior to the fall?-   15. Was the injured person talking to anyone just prior to fall?-   16. Does the injured person wear glasses or contact lenses? If so,    was the injured person wearing the glasses or contact lenses at the    time of the incident?    B. Regarding the accident scene-   1. Describe the stairway.    -   a) Number of steps?    -   b) Width of the steps?    -   c) Number of landings?    -   d) Size of the treads?    -   e) Height of the risers?    -   f) Composition of steps (e.g., wood, concrete, marble, etc.)?    -   g) Was there a covering on steps?        -   1. Carpeting, linoleum, rubber treads, nosing?        -   2. What was the condition of the covering?    -   h) What was the condition of the steps?-   2. Were there any defects on the steps?—If so, describe the    defect(s).-   3. Did the stairway have handrails?-   4. Was the stairway steep, straight, curved?-   5. Was the stairway a common passageway?—If so, who uses it?-   6. Describe the lighting in the stairway (e.g., natural, artificial,    adequacy).-   7. Were there any obstructions on the stairs?—If so, describe the    obstructions.-   8. If there was a defect or obstruction, how long had it existed?-   9. Had any steps been taken to alleviate the problem?-   10. Does the insured rent or own the premises?    C. Regarding the claimant-   1. Name and address?-   2. Age?-   3. Why was the claimant on the premises?    D. Regarding the injury-   1. If there was an injury, describe it.-   2. Identify the dates and type of treatments received by the injured    person.-   3. Identify doctors, hospitals, etc. that provided treatment to the    injured person.-   4. Is further treatment anticipated?-   5. What is the occupation of the injured person?—Obtain employer,    address, wages, lost time, etc.?    E. Regarding other information-   1. Describe what happened after the incident.-   2. Were police called?    -   a) If so, what branch of police responded (e.g., state, local,        etc.)?    -   b) What did they do?-   3. Obtain names and addresses of witnesses.-   4. Was alcohol or medication involved in the incident?    III. For slip, trip, or fall accidents that involve a sidewalk,    examples of investigative questions that may be asked include:    A. Regarding the accident-   1. Date?-   2. Time?-   3. What was the exact location of the accident on the premises?-   4. Does the insured own or rent the premises?-   5. Name and address of the injured person?    -   a) What is the injured person's relationship to the insured?    -   b) Why was the injured person on the premises?    -   c) Was the injured person familiar with the premises?-   6. Describe the movements of the injured person from the entrance    onto the premises to the accident location.-   7. Description of how the incident occurred.-   8. Describe the injured person's footwear.-   9. Was the injured person walking, running, and/or carrying    anything?-   10. Was the injured person arriving at or leaving the premises?-   11. Was any warning given of the dangerous condition?-   12. What happened immediately after the accident?    B. Regarding the accident scene-   1. Where is the sidewalk in question?-   2. What is the composition of the sidewalk (e.g., brick, stone,    cement, dirt, etc.)?-   3. What is the general condition of the sidewalk (e.g., any    defects)?-   4. Is the sidewalk privately or publicly owned?-   5. Describe the slope of the sidewalk.-   6. If ice was involved:    -   a) Where did the water come from?        -   1. Drain spout?        -   2. Eaves?        -   3. Plumbing?        -   4. Drains or pipes?        -   5. Melting snow?        -   6. Did the insured know of the leak? If so, for how long?            -   a) Were any steps taken to fix the leak?-   7. If snow was involved:    -   a) When did the snow start and stop falling?    -   b) How deep was the snow?    -   c) Describe the consistency of the snow.    -   d) Did the snow cover ice?    -   e) Was entire the sidewalk covered?    -   f) Had the sidewalk been cleaned?        -   1. By whom?        -   2. When?        -   3. Describe how the sidewalk was cleaned.        -   4. How was the snow piled?        -   5. Who had the duty to remove the snow?        -   6. Do any local ordinances address who is responsible for            clearing of snow?        -   7. Were there any agreements with outside vendors to clear            the snow?—If so, obtain the details and contracts.    -   g) Was any sanding done?        -   1. By whom?        -   2. How much?            C. Regarding the claimant-   1. Name and address?-   2. Age?-   3. Why was the claimant on the premises?    D. Regarding the injury-   1. If there was an injury, describe it.-   2. Identify the dates and type of treatments received by the injured    person.-   3. Identify doctors, hospitals, etc. that provided treatment to the    injured person.-   4. Is further treatment anticipated?-   5. What is the occupation of the injured person?—Obtain employer,    address, wages, lost time, etc.    E. Regarding other information-   1. Obtain names and addresses of witnesses.-   2. Was alcohol or medication involved in the incident?

Table 2 illustrates relationships between premises types and insuredtypes according to one embodiment. Generally, premises types may beplaced into three categories: residential, commercial, or public. Table2 also shows the application of slip, trip, or fall accidents to each ofthe premises according to one embodiment. Floors, fixtures, stairs,pools, and ramps may be applicable to interior slip, trip, and fallaccidents. All premises listed may be applicable to exterior slip, trip,or fall accidents with the exception of doors, which may apply only totrip accidents.

TABLE 2 RELATIONSHIP AND APPLICATION OF PREMISES TYPES Premises InsuredInterior Exterior Type Res Com Public Trip Slip Fall Trip Slip FallFloor X X X X X X X X X Fixture X X X X X X X X X Stairs X X X X X X X XX Doors X X X X X Pool X X X X X X X X X Yard X X X X Driveway X X X X XX Deck X X X X X X Parking lot X X X X X Sidewalk X X X X X X Ramp X X XX X X X X X Landscaping X X X X X X Unimproved X X X X X X LandParks/Rec X X X X X Areas

A dangerous condition on a premises may result in injury to a claimant.Table 3 list several types of dangerous conditions and examples of eachthat may exist on one or more premises listed in Table 1.

TABLE 3 TYPES OF DANGEROUS CONDITIONS Type of Dangerous ConditionExamples Natural Conditions Snow Slush Water from rain Ice Leaves MudGravel/Stones Sand Dirt Foreign Substances Liquid: oil, water, sodaSolid: foods Condition of Land Hole Crevice Crack Depression Change inelevation Steep surface Obstruction Condition of Structure Inherentlyslippery surface Crack Crevice Uneven surface Floor covering Change inelevation Steep surface Tread/riser defect Waxed Flooring ObstructionRailing

Determination of claimant status, breach of duty, causation, defenses,and bars may require the evaluation of one or more decision points.Examples of such decision points are show in flow charts in FIGS. 4 to19. In some embodiments, one or more algorithms may be used to evaluatea decision point. The algorithms may also be represented by flow charts.

As described herein, characteristics of the accident may be obtained asanswers to the investigative questions. In one embodiment, answers toinvestigative questions may be gathered by a claims adjuster at theaccident scene and/or other locations. The answers may be entered in adata entry screen on a computer system. In some embodiments, the dataentry screen may be tailored to the analyses shown in the flow charts inFIGS. 4 to 19. For instance, an entry may correspond to one or more ofthe decision points in the flow charts. The entry corresponding to theinvestigative question “Why was the injured person on the premises?” maybe tailored to decision points 406 and 410 in FIG. 4, for example.

In certain embodiments, the data entry screen may be adapted toevaluating algorithms for decision points. For example, characteristicsobtained from answers to a series of investigative questions relating toa dangerous condition (e.g., questions 9, 10, 12 a, 12 i, 12 l, 12 m ofthe Manson investigative questions) may be used in an algorithm fordecision points 502 and 504 in FIG. 5.

In one embodiment, a method of determining claimant status for anaccident may include providing to a computer system a set ofcharacteristics for the accident. The characteristics of the accidentmay then be evaluated. The claimant status may be determined from thecharacteristics of the accident. After the characteristics of anaccident have been provided (see point 302 of FIG. 3) the claimantstatus may be determined. FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating thedetermination of claimant status according to one embodiment. Decisionpoint 402 assesses whether the jurisdiction distinguishes between aninvitee, a licensee, and a trespasser. If not, the claimant status maybe general claimant, as shown in step 404.

Table 4 is a table of claimant status by state. A “Yes” next to a statein the table indicates that a state recognizes variations in claimantstatus (e.g., invitee, licensee, trespasser, etc.). A “No” next to astate in the table indicates that a state recognizes no variation inclaimant status. Claimants in states with no variation may be referredto as “general claimants.” In a state that does not recognize variationsin claimant status, any entrant to a premises is owed the same duty ofcare. In one embodiment, general claimant status is equivalent toinvitee status.

TABLE 4 CLAIMANT STATUS BY STATE Variation in State Claimants AlabamaYes Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas Yes California No Colorado NoConnecticut Yes Delaware No Florida Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho YesIllinois No Indiana Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Yes Kentucky Yes Louisiana NoMaine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Minnesota NoMississippi Yes Missouri Yes Montana Yes Nebraska Yes Nevada No New NoHampshire New Jersey Yes New Mexico Yes New York No North Yes CarolinaNorth Dakota No Ohio Yes Oklahoma Yes Oregon Yes Pennsylvania Yes RhodeIsland No South Yes Carolina South Dakota Yes Tennessee No Texas YesUtah Yes Vermont Yes Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Yes VirginiaWisconsin No Wyoming No

If the jurisdiction recognizes variations in claimant status, theclaimant status may be determined. Decision point 406 assesses whetherthe claimant had express or implied permission to be on the premises.“Express permission” may refer to permission directly and distinctlystated or expressed rather than implied or left to inference. A claimantmay have “implied permission” if the claimant believed he/she hadpermission to enter the premises and if the insured knew claimant was onthe premises. If the claimant had neither express nor impliedpermission, then step 408 indicates that the claimant may be atrespasser.

The method may proceed to decision point 410 if the claimant had eitherexpress or implied permission. Decision point 410 assesses whetherclaimant was on the premises for the insured's benefit. If the answer todecision point 410 is yes, then the claimant status may be an invitee,as shown by step 412. If the answer to decision point 410 is no, themethod may proceed to decision point 414 which assesses the insuredtype. If the insured type is public or commercial, decision point 416assesses the purpose for which the claimant was on the premises. If theclaimant was on the premises for the purpose for which premises is heldopen to the public, then the claimant may be an invitee, as indicated bystep 418. If the claimant was not on the premises for the purpose forwhich premises is held open to the public, then the claimant may be alicensee, as indicated by step 420.

If the premises type at decision point 414 is residential, then decisionpoint 422 assesses whether claimant was on premises for social,companionship, diversion, or enjoyment of hospitality. If the answer todecision point 422 is yes, then step 424 indicates that the claimant maybe a social guest. If the claimant was not on the premises for socialreasons, then decision point 426 assesses if the claimant was on thepremises primarily for his or her for own benefit. If not, then theclaimant may be an invitee, as indicated by decision point 428. If theclaimant was on the premises primarily for his or her for own benefit,then the claimant may be a licensee, as indicated by step 430.

In one embodiment, a method of estimating premises liability may includedetermining duties owed by an insured to a claimant (see FIG. 3, point306). The duties owed may be determined by claimant status. For example,a claimant status may be associated with one or more duties. Table 5lists exemplary duties that may be owed by an insured to variousclaimants in two jurisdictions according to one embodiment.

TABLE 5 DUTIES OWED TO CLAIMANTS BY CLAIMANT STATUS IN TWO JURISDICTIONSClaimant Jurisdiction Status Duties owed by insured to claimantPennsylvania Invitee Exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of thepremises for his safety. Warn the invitee of any dangerous conditionswhich are not open and obvious, and of which the possessor hasknowledge. Make reasonable inspections of the premises and remedy anydangerous conditions which the inspection reveals. Pennsylvania LicenseeExercise reasonable care in the maintenance and social of the premisesfor his safety. guest Warn the licensee of any dangerous conditionswhich are not open and obvious, and of which the possessor hasknowledge. Pennsylvania Trespasser Do not intentionally harm trespasser.New York All Parties: Exercise reasonable care in the maintenanceGeneral of the premises for his safety. Claimant Warn the visitor of anydangerous conditions which are not open and obvious, and of which thepossessor has knowledge. Make reasonable inspections of the premises andremedy any dangerous conditions which the inspection reveals.

The duties owed by an insured to a given claimant may depend upon thejurisdiction. As shown in Table 4, some states do not recognizevariations in claimant status. For example, Table 5 shows thatPennsylvania recognizes variations in claimant status, while New Yorkdoes not. The duties owed to an invitee, a licensee, a social guest, anda trespasser in Pennsylvania are shown in Table 5. An insured owes aninvitee three distinct duties that include maintenance of the premises,warning the invitee of dangerous conditions on the premises, andinspecting the premises. In New York, the insured owes the same dutiesthat are owed to a Pennsylvania invitee to all entrants on a premises.

Generally, an insured may owe maintenance of the premises and warning ofdangerous conditions on the premises to a licensee or social guest. Theinsured may owe no duty, however, to a licensee or social guest toinspect or fix the premises. In addition, the insured may only have aduty not to intentionally harm a trespasser. In some jurisdictions,duties to a trespasser vary. Criteria for what constitutes each of theseduties may also vary between jurisdictions.

Table 6 includes a list of premises types categorized by frequency ofaccidents and amount of traffic according to one embodiment. Table 5shows that an insured may have a duty to make reasonable inspections ofa premises. In one embodiment, the categories in Table 6 may be used toevaluate the timely inspection frequency for a given premises. As usedherein, a “timely inspection frequency” refers to the inspectionfrequency necessary to meet the standard of care of reasonableinspections indicated in Table 5. For example, the higher the trafficand the higher the frequency of accidents of a particular premises, thegreater the timely inspection frequency for the premises. Thus, agrocery store produce department may be expected to have more frequentinspections than other departments within the same grocery store.Likewise, an office building or school may reasonably be expected tohave less frequent inspections than a convenience store. In somejurisdictions there may be no requirement to inspect a privateresidence.

TABLE 6 PREMISES TYPES CATEGORIZED BY FREQUENCY OF ACCIDENTS AND AMOUNTOF TRAFFIC High traffic Moderate traffic Low Traffic High Grocery: FreshFrequency produce dept Restaurant: Fast food Restaurant: OtherRestaurant: Food court/ Concession Convenience store Moderate Grocery:Other dept Frequency Discount store Mall: Common area Smallretail/Service Department store Laundromat Hotel/Motel Hardware/Homeimprovement Airport Bus/Train terminal Theater Low Park Office buildingPrivate Frequency Apartment building residence Condominium complexRecreational facility (health/fitness club; YMCA) Parking area/facilityChurch School

In one embodiment, each duty owed may be analyzed and compared to thestandard of care exercised by the insured to determine whether or notthere was a breach of duty. If the standard of care exercised by theinsured is less than the standard of care required, there may be abreach of duty. In one embodiment, duties owed may be examined todetermine whether or not they have been transferred by contract to athird party.

In one embodiment, a method of determining breach of duty in premisesliability may include evaluating the characteristics of an accident thatwere provided to a computer system. The breach of duty may be determinedfrom the evaluated characteristics.

Table 7 provides a summary of decision points that may be used forevaluating characteristics according to one embodiment. The decisionpoints may be divided into three categories: those relating to thedangerous condition, those that relate to the insured, and those thatrelate to the claimant. In Table 7, actual notice and constructivenotice refer to whether the insured had notice of the dangerouscondition. Opportunity to warn or remedy refers to whether the insuredhad opportunity to warn the claimant of the dangerous condition orremedy the dangerous condition. Adequate warning refers to whether theinsured provided adequate warning of the dangerous condition to theclaimant. Remedied refers to whether the insured remedied the dangerouscondition. Created to harm refers to whether the insured intentionallycreated the dangerous condition that harmed or injured the claimant.Knowledge of dangerous condition refers to whether the claimant hadknowledge of the dangerous condition.

TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF DECISION POINTS FOR DETERMINING BREACH OF DUTY TypeDecision Point Condition Dangerous condition Poses unreasonable risk ofharm Open and obvious Insured Actual notice Constructive noticeOpportunity to warn or remedy Adequate warning Remedied Created to harmClaimant Knowledge of dangerous condition

FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating determination of breach of duty foran invitee according to one embodiment. Decision point 502 assesseswhether there is a dangerous condition on the premises. If there wasnot, then there may be no breach, as indicated at step 503. If there wasa dangerous condition, decision point 504 may assess whether thedangerous condition was open and obvious. If the dangerous condition wasopen and obvious, then there may be no breach, as indicated at step 506.If the dangerous condition was not open and obvious, then decision point508 assesses whether the insured had actual notice of the dangerouscondition. If the insured did not have actual notice, then decisionpoint 510 assesses whether the insured had constructive notice. Step 512indicates that there may be breach of duty if the insured hadconstructive notice. Step 514 indicates there may be no breach if therewas no constructive notice. If the insured had actual notice of thedangerous condition at decision point 508, decision point 516 assesseswhether the insured had opportunity to warn the claimant or remedy thedangerous condition. If there was no opportunity, then there may be nobreach, as indicated by step 518. If there was an opportunity to warn orremedy, decision point 520 assesses if the dangerous condition wasremedied. Step 522 indicates that there may be no breach if thedangerous condition was remedied. However, decision point 524 assessesif the insured provided an adequate warning to the claimant of thedangerous condition if the dangerous condition was not remedied. If anadequate warning was given, then there may be no breach, as indicated bystep 526. Step 528 indicates that there may be a breach if an adequatewarning was not given.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating determination of breach of duty fora licensee according to one embodiment. Decision point 602 assesseswhether there was a dangerous condition and whether it posed anunreasonable risk of harm. Step 604 indicates that there may be nobreach if the answer to decision point 602 is no. If there was adangerous condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm, thendecision point 606 assesses if the dangerous condition was open andobvious. Step 608 indicates that there may be no breach if the dangerouscondition was open and obvious. If the dangerous condition was not openand obvious, then decision point 610 assesses whether the licensee knewabout the dangerous condition. If the licensee did know, then there maybe no breach, as indicated by step 612. If the licensee did not knowabout the dangerous condition, then decision point 614 assesses if theinsured had actual notice of the dangerous condition. If there wasactual notice, then decision point 616 assesses if there was adequatewarning to the licensee. If there was adequate warning, then there maybe no breach, as indicated by step 620. Step 622 indicates that theremay be a breach of duty if there was no adequate warning.

If there was no actual notice of the dangerous condition to the insured,then decision point 618 assesses if there was constructive notice of thedangerous condition to the insured. If there was, then there may be abreach, as step 624 indicates. Step 626 indicates that there may be nobreach if there was no constructive notice of the dangerous condition tothe insured.

FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating determination of breach of duty fora trespasser according to one embodiment. Decision point 702 assesses ifthere was a dangerous condition on the premises. If there was not, thenthere may be no breach as indicated by step 704. If there was adangerous condition, then decision point 706 may ask if the dangerouscondition was created to harm. If the answer is yes, there may be abreach, as indicated by step 708. Step 710 indicates that there may beno breach if the dangerous condition was not created to harm.

Table 8 includes investigative questions relating to characteristics ofan accident for determining breach of duty in a floor slip, trip, orfall accident according to one embodiment. The columns in Table 8correspond to the decision points of FIGS. 5, 6, and 7. Table 8 includesgeneral questions about the accident and accident scene. An “X” in acolumn indicates that the answer to that investigative question may beuseful for evaluating the decision point corresponding to that column.Table 8 also includes investigative questions specific to dangerousconditions that may have caused the accident. For example, Table 8includes investigative questions relating to water or liquid, a foreignobject, or a structural defect that may have been on the floor. Table 8also includes investigative questions relating to an accident in astore.

TABLE 8 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGBREACH OF DUTY FOR A FOR A FLOOR SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT DecisionPoint Poses Condition Con- Opportunity Knowledge Dangerous unreasonableOpen Actual structive to warn of dangerous Adequate Created Questionscondition risk of harm & Obvious Notice Notice or remedy conditionRemedied Warning To Harm General- Exact location of X X X X X accidenton premises Condition complained X X X X X X of Type of flooring X X X Xinvolved Is area inspected X regularly Cause of the condition X X X X XX X Where was claimant X X X looking prior to fall Was claimant talkingX X X to anyone Was claimant carrying X X X anything Was claimant in a XX X hurry Was claimant walking X X X or running What is claimant X X X Xalleging is cause of accident Water or Liquid Liquid consistency X X X XX How did it get there X X X X X X Was weather a factor X X X X X X XWas water tracked X X X X X X X inside Were storm mats in X X X X Xplace Did liquid come from X X X X X X other than insured How long hadliquid X X X X X X X X been there Dimensions of puddle X X X X X X Anywarning signs or X X X X X X X X X X barriers Were steps taken to X X XX X X X X X clean before incident Was area well lit X X X X X X X Wasliquid clearly X X X X X X X X X visible Foreign Object Size andconsistency X X X X X X X Describe location of X X X X X X X item Anyoneaware of X X X X X X X X X foreign object How long had object X X X X XX X X been there Any steps taken to X X X X X X X X eliminate dangerouscondition Any warning signs or X X X X X X X X X X barriers Store IsSubstance natural to X X X X X X X X X insured's business What isstore's X X X X X X X X procedure about cleaning When was last X X X X XX X X X inspection and who inspected Waxed Floor When waxed X X X X X XX Waxed by whom X X X X X X X Waxed with what X X X X X X productApplied according to X X X X X X X X manufacturer's instructionsStructural Defect Composition of floor X X X X X X X Surface level orsloped X X X X X X X If sloped, how much X X X X X X Was floor smooth, XX X X X X rough, or depressed What were measure- X X X X X X X ments ofdefect Was defect visible X X X X X X X X Floor sagging or X X X X X Xbroken How long has defect X X X X X been there Was insured aware of X XX X X X defect Was claimant aware of X X X X X defect Had steps beentaken X X X X X to alleviate defect

Table 9 includes investigative questions about characteristics fordetermining breach of duty in a stairway slip, trip, or fall accidentaccording to one embodiment. The columns in Table 9 correspond to thedecision points of FIGS. 5, 6, and 7. An “X” in a column indicates thatthe answer to that investigative question may be useful for evaluatingthe decision point corresponding to that column.

TABLE 9 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGBREACH OF DUTY FOR A STAIRWAY SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT DecisionPoint Poses Condition Con- Opportunity Knowledge Dangerous unreasonableOpen Actual structive to warn of dangerous Adequate Created Questionscondition risk of harm & Obvious Notice Notice or remedy conditionRemedied Warning To Harm Describe Stairway X X X X X X X Any defect onsteps- X X X X X X X X X describe Handrails X X X X X Was stairwaysteep, X X X X X X X X X straight, or curved Describe lighting- X X X XX X X X X natural, artificial, adequacy Were there any X X X X X X X X Xobstructions on stair- describe How long has obstruc- X X X X X tionexisted Any steps to eliminate X X X X X obstruction Claimant familiarwith X X X X premises Obtain details if X X X X weather a factor Waslight on X X X X X X X X X Where looking prior to X X X fall Talking toanyone just X X X prior to fall Does claimant wear X X glasses-wearingat time

Table 10 includes investigative questions about characteristics fordetermining breach of duty in a sidewalk slip, trip, or fall accidentaccording to one embodiment. The columns in Table 10 correspond to thedecision points of FIGS. 5, 6, and 7. An “X” in a column indicates thatthe answer to that investigative question may be useful for evaluatingthe decision point corresponding to that column. Table 10 includesgeneral investigative questions about the accident and accident sceneand specific investigative questions concerning the condition of thesidewalk. For example, Table 10 includes investigative questionsrelating to ice and snow that may have been on the sidewalk.

TABLE 10 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGBREACH OF DUTY FOR A SIDEWALK SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT DecisionPoint Poses Condition Con- Opportunity Knowledge Dangerous unreasonableOpen Actual structive to warn of dangerous Adequate Created Questionscondition risk of harm & Obvious Notice Notice or remedy conditionRemedied Warning To Harm General- Where is sidewalk in X X X X X Xquestion What is composition X X X X X X X X of sidewalk Generalcondition of X X X X X X X X X sidewalk-defects Describe slope of X X XX X X X X X sidewalk Ice Where did water come X X X X X X X from Howlong did insured X X X X X know of leak Snow When did snow start X X X XX X X and stop Depth of snow X X X X X X X X Consistency of snow X X X XX X X X Did snow cover ice X X X X X X X X Was entire sidewalk X X X X XX X X covered Was sidewalk cleaned X X X X X X X X X Cleaned by whom/ XX X X X X X X when Describe how cleaned X X X X X X How was snow piled XX X X X X X X X

In one embodiment, a method of determining causation of a breach of dutyby an insured may include providing to a computer system a set ofcharacteristics relating to the accident. The method may includedetermining whether the breach of duty was both a cause in fact and aproximate cause of a claimant's harm from at least one of thecharacteristics.

In certain embodiments, cause in fact may be determined by one or moredecision points that evaluate at least one of the characteristics. Causein fact may be associated with one or more combinations of answers tothe one or more decision points. FIG. 8A is a flow chart illustratingthe determination of cause in fact according to one embodiment. Decisionpoint 802 is an assessment of whether the dangerous condition was theonly cause of claimant's harm. If it was, then the “but for” test isapplied at decision point 804. The “but for” test determines whether adangerous condition may be considered a cause in fact of the claimant'sharm by asking if the harm would not have occurred but for the dangerouscondition. If the assessment at decision point 804 is yes, then thedangerous condition may be a cause in fact of the claimant's harm, asindicated by step 806. Step 808 indicates that the dangerous conditionmay not be a cause in fact of the claimant's harm when the “but for”test fails at decision point 804.

In one embodiment, there may be causes in addition to the dangerouscondition that may have caused the claimant's harm. If the dangerouscondition is not the only cause of the claimant's harm, the there may bejoint or alternate causes. As used herein, the term “joint causes”refers to causes that may combine or concur to bring about theclaimant's harm. None of the joint causes standing alone may besufficient to cause the claimant's harm. Alternatively, any of the jointcauses alone may be sufficient to cause the claimant's harm. As usedherein, the term “alternate causes” refers to causes that do not combineto cause the claimant's harm. Any one of two or more alternate causesmay have been sufficient to cause the claimant's harm. Generally, it isuncertain which of the alternate causes may be the cause in fact of theclaimant's harm.

Decision point 810 in FIG. 8A assesses whether there may be joint causesthat combine to bring about the claimant's harm. If not, then decisionpoint 812 assesses whether claimant's harm may be caused by one of twoor more alternate causes. If decision point 812 is positive, then theburden of proof shifts to the defendants, i.e., the insured and theother defendants responsible for the other alternate causes, asindicated by step 814. Each of the defendants may be required to showthat their respective causes are not the cause in fact of the claimant'sharm. In an embodiment of a computer-implemented method of assessingliability, a computer system may provide an output indicating that anegotiated agreement may be desirable if the method reaches step 814.None of the alternate causes may be a cause in fact if decision point812 is negative, as indicated by step 816.

If there are joint causes of harm to the claimant, then decision point818 assesses whether any one of the joint causes may have beensufficient to cause harm to the claimant. If not, decision point 820assesses whether any of the joint causes is a “but for” cause of theclaimant's harm. If decision point 820 identifies any of the jointcauses as “but for” causes of the claimant's harm, then cause in factmay be established with regard to those joint causes, as indicated bystep 822. Step 824 indicates that none of the joint causes may be thecause in fact if none of the joint causes is a “but for” cause.

At decision point 818, if any one of the joint causes may be sufficientto cause harm to the claimant, then decision point 826 may apply the“substantial factor test.” The “substantial factor test” may assesswhether the dangerous condition is a substantial factor in causing theclaimant's harm. Step 828 indicates that if the dangerous condition wasa substantial factor, then the dangerous condition may be a cause infact. If the dangerous condition was not a substantial factor, then step830 indicates that the dangerous condition may not be a cause in fact.

In an alternative embodiment, an expert claims adjuster may determinecause in fact from an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of theaccident.

Table 11 includes investigative questions relating to characteristics ofan accident for determining cause in fact in a floor slip, trip, or fallaccident according to one embodiment. The columns in Table 11 correspondto decision points in FIG. 8 a. An “X” in a column indicates that theanswer to that investigative question may be useful for evaluating thedecision point corresponding to that column. Table 11 includes generalinvestigative questions about the accident and accident scene. Table 11also includes investigative questions specific to dangerous conditionsthat may have caused the accident. For example, Table 11 includesinvestigative questions relating to water or liquid, foreign object, orstructural defect that may have been on the floor. Table 11 alsoincludes investigative questions relating to a slip, trip, or fallaccident in a store.

TABLE 11 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGCAUSE IN FACT FOR A FLOOR SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT Decision PointsAny one Dangerous Claimant's of joint Any of joint Dangerous conditionDangerous harm causes causes but condition only cause condition butJoint caused by sufficient for cause substantial of for cause of causesof at least one to cause of factor in claimant's claimant's harm toalternate harm to claimant's harm to Questions harm harm claimant causeclaimant harm claimant General- Exact location of accident X X X onpremises Condition complained of X X X Cause of the condition X X XWhere was claimant looking X X X X X prior to fall Was claimant talkingto X X X anyone Was claimant carrying X X X X X X X anything Wasclaimant in a hurry X X X X X X X Was claimant walking or X X X X X X Xrunning Water or Liquid How did it get there X X Was weather a factor XX X Was water tracked inside X X X Were storm mats in place X X X Didliquid come from other X X X than insured How long had liquid been X Xthere Dimensions of puddle X X X X Was area well lit X X Was liquidclearly visible X Foreign Object Size and consistency X X X Describelocation of item X X Store When was last inspection X X X and whoinspected Waxed Floor Waxed by whom X X X Waxed with what product X X XX X X X Applied according to X X X X X X X manufacturer's instructionsStructural Defect Composition of floor X X X X Surface level or sloped XX X X X If sloped, how much X X X X X Was floor smooth, rough, or Xdepressed What were measurements X X of defect Was defect visible X X XFloor sagging or broken X Was claimant aware of X X X defect Had stepsbeen taken to X X X alleviate defect

Table 12 includes investigative questions about characteristics fordetermining cause in fact in a stairway slip, trip, or fall accidentaccording to one embodiment. The columns in Table 12 correspond todecision points in FIG. 8A. An “X” in a column indicates that the answerto that investigative question may be useful for evaluating the decisionpoint corresponding to that column.

TABLE 12 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGCAUSE IN FACT FOR A STAIRWAY SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT DecisionPoints Any one Dangerous Claimant's of joint Any of joint Dangerouscondition Dangerous harm causes causes but condition only causecondition but Joint caused by sufficient for cause substantial of forcause of causes of at least one to cause of factor in claimant'sclaimant's harm to alternate harm to claimant's harm to Questions harmharm claimant cause claimant harm claimant Describe Stairway X X X Anydefect on steps- X describe Handrails X X X Was stairway steep, X X Xstraight or curved Describe lighting-natural, X X X X artificial,adequacy Were there any X X X X X X X obstructions on stair- describeObtain details if weather a X X X factor Was light on X X X X Wherelooking prior to fall X X X Talking to anyone just prior X X X to fallDoes claimant wear glasses- X X X wearing at time

Table 13 includes investigative questions about characteristics fordetermining cause in fact in a sidewalk slip, trip, or fall accidentaccording to one embodiment. The columns in Table 13 correspond todecision points in FIG. 8A. An “X” in a column indicates that aninvestigative question may be useful for evaluating the decision pointcorresponding to that column. Table 13 includes general investigativequestions about the accident and accident scene and specificinvestigative questions concerning the condition of the sidewalk. Forexample, Table 13 includes investigative questions relating to ice andsnow that may have been on the sidewalk.

TABLE 13 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGCAUSE IN FACT FOR A SIDEWALK SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT DecisionPoints Any one Dangerous Claimant's of joint Any of joint Dangerouscondition Dangerous harm causes causes but condition only causecondition but Joint caused by sufficient for cause substantial of forcause of causes of at least one to cause of factor in claimant'sclaimant's harm to alternate harm to claimant's harm to Questions harmharm claimant cause claimant harm claimant General- Where is sidewalk inX X X question What is composition of X X X X sidewalk General conditionof X X X sidewalk-defects Describe slope of sidewalk X X X X X Ice Wheredid water come from X X X How long did insured know X X of leak SnowWhen did snow start and X X X stop Depth of snow X Consistency of snow XDid snow cover ice X X X X Was entire sidewalk X covered Cleaned bywhom/when X X X Describe how cleaned X X X How was snow piled X X X

Generally, the acts and/or omissions of an insured may be a proximatecause for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of andwithin the increased risk caused by the insured's acts and/or omissions.The test for proximate cause may be based on foreseeability. As usedherein, the term “foreseeability” refers to the reasonable anticipationof the possible results of an action or condition. For example,foreseeability in premises liability may be the reasonable anticipationof the harm to a claimant resulting from a dangerous condition on apremises.

In certain embodiments, proximate cause may be determined from one ormore decision points by evaluating at least one of the characteristicsof the accident. The proximate cause may be associated with one or morecombinations of answers to the one or more decision points. FIG. 8B is aflow chart illustrating the determination of proximate cause in premisesliability according to one embodiment. Decision point 850 assesseswhether the dangerous condition on the insured's premises was a “directcause” of the claimant's harm. As used herein, a “direct cause” caserefers to one in which the facts may present an uninterrupted chain ofevents from the time of acts or omissions of the insured that may benegligent to the time of the claimant's harm. In a direct cause case,there is no intervening force. As used herein, the term “interveningforce” refers to an event that occurs between the acts or omissions ofthe insured that may be negligent and the claimant's harm. If the answerto decision point 850 is yes, then decision point 852 assesses whetherthe claimant's harm was foreseeable. Step 854 indicates that proximatecause may exist if the harm was foreseeable. If a harmful result was atall foreseeable from the dangerous condition, the unusual manner inwhich the claimant's harm occurred or the unusual timing of cause andeffect may not be relevant to assessing proximate cause. Alternatively,if the harmful results were unforeseeable, then step 856 indicates thatthere may be no proximate cause. An unforeseeable harmful result may bean entirely different type of harm that would be expected to result fromthe dangerous condition.

If the answer at decision point 850 is no, then the dangerous conditionmay be an indirect cause of claimant's harm. As used herein, an“indirect cause” case is one in which the facts indicate that a harmfulforce may have come into motion after the time of the acts or omissionsof an insured that may be negligent. The harmful force may have thencombined with the acts or omissions of the insured to cause injury tothe claimant. Such a harmful force may be referred to as an interveningforce. Decision point 858 assesses whether there was foreseeable harm tothe claimant. If there was not, then there may be no proximate cause, asindicated by step 860. Generally, intervening forces that produceunforeseeable harm may be considered unforeseeable or superseding. Asused herein, a “superseding force” is defined as a force that may breakthe causal connection between the acts or omissions of the insured thatmay be negligent and the claimant's harm. The superseding force maybecome the direct immediate cause of the claimant's harm. In addition,there may still be no proximate cause even for foreseeable interveningforces that produce unforeseeable harm.

If the harm to the claimant is assessed to be foreseeable at decisionpoint 858, the foreseeability of the intervening force is assessed atdecision point 862. Step 870 indicates that there may be proximate causeif the answer to decision point 862 is yes. If the intervening force wasunforeseeable, then decision point 864 assesses whether the interveningforce was a crime or tort. If not, then there may be proximate cause, asindicated by step 866. Step 868 indicates that there may be no proximatecause if the intervening force was a crime or tort.

In an alternative embodiment, an expert claims adjuster may determinecause in fact and/or proximate cause from an evaluation of the facts andcircumstances of the accident.

Table 14 includes investigative questions relating to characteristics ofan accident for determining proximate cause in a floor slip, trip, orfall accident according to one embodiment. The columns in Table 14correspond to decision points in FIG. 8B. An “X” in a column indicatesthat the answer to that question may be useful for evaluating thedecision point corresponding to that column. Table 14 includes generalinvestigative questions about the accident and accident scene. Table 14also includes investigative questions specific to dangerous conditionsthat may have caused the slip, trip, or fall accident. For example,Table 14 includes investigative questions relating to water or liquid,foreign objects, or structural defects that may have been on the floor.Table 14 also includes investigative questions relating to a slip, trip,or fall accident in a store.

TABLE 14 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGPROXIMATE CAUSE FOR A FLOOR SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT Decision PointsFore- seeable inter- vening Inter- Fore- force vening Direct seeablecause of force was cause harm to harm to crime Questions of harmclaimant claimant or tort General- Exact location of accident X X X onpremises Condition complained of X X Type of flooring involved X X XCause of the condition X X X X Where was claimant X X looking prior tofall Was claimant talking to X anyone Was claimant carrying X anythingWas claimant in a hurry X X Was claimant walking or X X X running Whatis claimant alleging X X X is cause of fall Water or Liquid Liquidconsistency X X X How did it get there X X X Was weather a factor X X XWas water tracked inside X X X Were storm mats in place X X X Did liquidcome from other X X X than insured How long had liquid been X thereDimensions of puddle X Any warning signs or X X X barriers Were stepstaken to clean X X before incident Was area well lit X X X Was liquidclearly visible X X Foreign Object Size and consistency X X Describelocation of item X X Any steps taken to X X X eliminate dangerouscondition Any warning signs or X X X barriers Store Is Substance naturalto X X X X insured's business What is store's procedure X about cleaningWhen was last inspection X X X and who inspected Waxed Floor When waxedX X Waxed by whom X X Waxed with what product X X X Applied according toX X X manufacturer's instructions Structural Defect Composition of floorX X Surface level or sloped X X If sloped, how much X X Was floorsmooth, rough or X X depressed What were measurements X X X of defectWas defect visible X X X X Floor sagging or broken X X X X Was claimantaware of X X defect Had steps been taken to X X X alleviate defect

Table 15 includes investigative questions about characteristics fordetermining proximate cause in a stairway accident according to oneembodiment. The columns in Table 15 correspond to decision points inFIG. 8B. An “X” in a column indicates that the answer to thatinvestigative question may be useful for evaluating the decision pointcorresponding to that column.

TABLE 15 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGPROXIMATE CAUSE FOR A STAIRWAY SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT DecisionPoints Fore- seeable inter- vening Inter- Fore- force vening Directseeable cause of force was cause harm to harm to crime Questions of harmclaimant claimant or tort Describe Stairway X X X Any defect on steps- XX describe Handrails X X Was stairway steep, X X straight, or curvedDescribe lighting-natural, X X X artificial, adequacy Were there any X XX obstructions on stair- describe Any steps to eliminate X X Xobstruction Claimant familiar with X X premises Obtain details ifweather a X X X factor Was light on X X X Where looking prior to fall XX Talking to anyone just prior X X to fall Does claimant wear X Xglasses-wearing at time

Table 16 includes investigative questions about characteristics fordetermining proximate cause in a sidewalk slip, trip, or fall accidentaccording to one embodiment. The columns in Table 16 correspond todecision points in FIG. 8B. An “X” in a column indicates that the answerto that investigative question may be useful for evaluating the decisionpoint corresponding to that column. Table 16 includes generalinvestigative questions about the accident and accident scene andspecific investigative questions concerning the condition of thesidewalk. For example, Table 16 includes investigative questionsrelating to ice and snow that may have been on the sidewalk.

TABLE 16 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS FOR DETERMININGPROXIMATE CAUSE FOR A SIDEWALK SLIP, TRIP, OR FALL ACCIDENT DecisionPoints Fore- seeable inter- vening Inter- Fore- force vening Directseeable cause of force was cause harm to harm to crime Questions of harmclaimant claimant or tort General- Where is sidewalk in X X X questionWhat is composition of X X X sidewalk General condition of X Xsidewalk-defects Describe slope of sidewalk X X Ice Where did water comefrom X X X X How long did insured know X of leak Snow When did snowstart and X X X stop Depth of snow X Did snow cover ice X X Was entiresidewalk X covered Was sidewalk cleaned X Cleaned by whom/when X XDescribe how cleaned X X X How was snow piled X X X

In one embodiment, the liability assessed to the insured when theconditions of negligence are met may be 100%. Alternatively, theliability to the insured may be assessed at less than 100%. In anembodiment, assignment of a portion of liability to the claimant may bebased on the manner in which duty was breached. For example, FIG. 5shows that breach of duty to an invitee may be found when there iseither actual notice or constructive notice of the dangerous conditionto the insured. Therefore, a portion of the liability may be assigned tothe claimant when there is constructive notice rather than actualnotice.

In one embodiment, a method of estimating a contribution of a defense topremises liability may include providing to a computer system a set ofcharacteristics relating to an accident. The contribution of the defensemay be determined from the characteristics of the accident. One or moredecision points may be used to evaluate at least one of thecharacteristics. An estimate of an effect on liability may be associatedwith one or more combinations of answers to the decision points. Theeffect on liability of the defense may be determined from the answers tothe decision points.

Table 17 lists defenses according to one embodiment. One or moredefenses may be applied to shift liability from the insured to theclaimant if the claimant is found to be negligent for a condition oraction on a premises.

TABLE 17 DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE Defenses Alcohol or drug use Alternatepath Claimant created dangerous condition Choice of paths ruleDisability Failure to use due care Failure to heed warning ForgetfulnessImplied assumption of risk Improper lookout Knowledge of dangerrequirement Open and obvious Plain view doctrine Step in the dark Youth

As used herein, the defense of “alcohol or drug use” may be defined asintoxication by means of any substance, which may prevent a person fromrecognizing a dangerous condition. FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustratingthe application of the alcohol or drug use defense according to oneembodiment. Decision point 902 assesses whether the claimant hadconsumed alcohol or drugs prior to the accident. If the claimant had notconsumed alcohol or drugs prior to the accident, then the defense is notapplicable, as indicated by step 904. If the claimant had consumedalcohol or drugs prior to the accident, then decision point 906 askswhether the claimant was impaired by the amount of alcohol or drugsconsumed. If the claimant was not impaired, then the defense may not beapplicable, as indicated by step 908. If the claimant was impaired, thendecision point 910 asks whether the impairment contributed to theaccident. If impairment did not contribute to the accident, then thedefense may not be applicable, as indicated at step 912. Step 914indicates that the defense may apply if the impairment did contribute tothe accident.

For example, a claimant may consume a large quantity of alcohol andprescription muscle relaxants. The claimant may then decide to visit theinsured. While visiting the insured the claimant may fall on wet stepsto the insured's deck. The claimant may have been able to avoid theaccident if not for the alcohol and drugs. If the insured is found to benegligent, the insured's liability may be reduced or eliminated due tothe fact that the claimant was intoxicated.

The “failure to use alternate path” defense may apply when a claimantchose to use an unsafe path when a safe path was clearly available. Inthe law of negligence, when more than one path is available, an ordinaryreasonable prudent person will use the safest path. FIG. 10 is a flowchart for determining the application of the failure to use alternatepath defense according to one embodiment. Decision point 1002 assesseswhether the claimant was aware of the dangerous or unsafe path. If theclaimant was not aware, then decision point 1004 assesses whether theclaimant should have been aware of the dangerous path. If not, then thedefense may not be applicable, as indicated at step 1006. If theclaimant was aware of the dangerous path or should have been aware ofthe dangerous path then decision point 1008 assesses whether a pathchoice was available. If there was no choice of path, then the defensemay not apply, as indicated by step 1010. If a path choice wasavailable, decision point 1012 assesses whether there was a carelesschoice. If there was a careless choice of path, then the defense may beapplicable, as indicated by step 1014. The defense may not apply if thechoice of path was not careless, as indicated by step 1016.

For example, the failure to use alternate path defense may apply when aclaimant chooses to take a shortcut between parked cars in a snow and/orice covered parking lot even though a cleared sidewalk was availableclose by. Another example may be a claimant that walked through an areawhere something was spilled on the floor, when the claimant could havewalked through a safe area.

The “claimant created dangerous condition” defense may apply when theclaimant created or caused the dangerous condition that resulted in theclaimant's injury. For example, if the claimant spilled a glass of waterand later walked through the water resulting in a slip, the “claimantcreated dangerous condition” defense may apply.

The “choice of paths” defense may apply when there are two ways ofaccomplishing something that needs to be done. Generally, one of theways may be safe and the other may be unsafe. The defense may apply whena claimant chooses the unsafe way. The reasonable selection of a routeof travel may be part of a claimant's duty to exercise reasonable carefor his or her own safety.

Generally, the choice of paths defense may require evidence of a safecourse, a dangerous course, and facts that would put a reasonable personon notice of the danger or actual knowledge of the danger. An inviteemay not be required to choose the safest course across the landowner'sproperty. However, if an invitee voluntarily departs from the routedesignated and maintained by the landowner for the invitee's safety andconvenience, such as a walk or path, the degree of caution required bythe invitee's duty of care may be heightened by an increased riskresulting from that choice.

In some jurisdictions, claimants with a physical disability may berequired to put forth a greater effort for their safety than one notdisabled. Claimants with disabilities may be charged with knowledge oftheir physical condition. Generally, disabled claimants may be requiredto avoid dangerous conditions, even if such conditions may be safe for aperson of average health and strength. The test of negligence for adisabled or elderly person may be the conduct of an ordinarily prudentperson of the same physical condition or age. In some instances,pregnant women may also be required to put forth a greater effort fortheir safety.

In general, a claimant's age and physical condition may affect theclaimant's ability to detect dangers, to hear warnings, and to reachmeans of support. These characteristics of the claimant may beconsidered when evaluating negligence. For example, a blind person whoproceeds without any aid such as a cane, a seeing-eye dog, or companionsmay be contributorily negligent as a matter of law. However, a blindperson who proceeds carefully with the aid of a cane and companions maynot be held contributorily negligent as a matter of law. A blind inviteewho uses his or her cane properly by tapping the ground or floor aheadof him or her may not be negligent for failure to discover a particulardefect by the use of the cane.

The “failure to use due care” defense may apply when a claimant failedto use a degree of care that the ordinary reasonable prudent personshould have used in the same or similar circumstances. FIG. 11 is a flowchart illustrating the general application of the failure to use duecare defense according to one embodiment. Decision point 1102 assesseswhether the claimant was aware of the dangerous condition. If theclaimant was not aware, then decision point 1104 assesses whether theclaimant should have been aware of the dangerous condition. If not, thenthe defense may not be applicable, as indicated at step 1106. If theclaimant was aware of the dangerous condition or should have been awareof the dangerous condition, then decision point 1108 assesses if achoice was available. If there was no choice, then the defense may notapply, as indicated by step 1110. Decision point 1112 assesses whetherthere was a careless choice if a choice was available. If there was acareless choice, then the defense may be applicable, as indicated bydecision point 1114. The defense may not apply if the choice was notcareless, as indicated by step 1116.

In one embodiment, the failure to use due care defense may apply to theclaimant's choice of clothing in a given situation. The applicability ofthe defense may depend on whether the claimant's choice of clothing inany way contributed to the accident. If the claimant's choice ofclothing did contribute, then the defense may apply.

In certain embodiments, the failure to use due care defense may beapplied in situations in which the claimant has impaired vision. FIG. 12is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure to use duecare defense to impaired vision according to one embodiment. Decisionpoint 1202 assesses if the claimant wears optical aids (e.g., glasses orcontacts) normally. If not, then the defense may not apply, as indicatedby step 1204. If the claimant does use an optical aid, decision point1206 assesses whether the claimant wears optical aids to see “near” or“far.” The defense may not be applicable if the answer is “near,” asindicated by step 1208. Decision point 1210 assesses whether claimantwas wearing optical aids at the time of the accident if the answer todecision point 1206 is “far.” Step 1212 indicates that the defense maynot apply if the answer to decision point 1210 is yes. If the claimantwas not wearing optical aids at the time of the accident, decision point1214 assesses whether the claimant's failure to wear optical aidscontributed to the accident. If so, then step 1216 indicates that thedefense may apply. If the claimant's failure to wear optical aids didnot contribute, step 1218 indicates that the defense may not beapplicable.

In one embodiment, the failure to use due care defense may be applied tosituations in which a claimant's injury may be due to improper footwearworn by the claimant. FIG. 13 is a flow chart illustrating theapplication of the failure to use due care defense to claimant'simproper footwear according to one embodiment. Decision point 1302assesses the location of the accident. As shown in FIG. 13, the locationof the accident may be interior or exterior. If the location isinterior, then decision point 1304 assesses if the hazard includestracked in rain, water, snow, or slush. Step 1306 indicates that thedefense may not apply if the answer to decision point 1304 is no. If thehazard includes tracked in rain, water, snow, or slush then decisionpoint 1312 assesses whether the claimant should have anticipated theweather condition. If not, then step 1314 indicates that the defense maynot apply. Decision point 1316 asks whether the claimant's footwear wasappropriate for the conditions if the claimant should have anticipatedthe weather condition. Step 1318 indicates that the defense may notapply if the claimant's footwear was appropriate. Step 1320 indicatesthat the defense may apply if the footwear was not appropriate.

Furthermore, if the location of the accident at decision point 1302 isexterior, then decision point 1308 assesses whether the hazard includesa weather condition such as rain, water, snow, slush, or ice. If not,then step 1310 indicates that the defense may not apply. If the hazardincludes a weather condition, then the method reaches decision point1312 and continues as described previously.

In one embodiment, the failure to use due care defense may be applied tosituations in which claimant's injury may be due to claimant'sinattention. FIG. 14 is a flow chart illustrating the application of thefailure to use due care defense to claimant's inattention according toone embodiment. Decision point 1402 assesses if there were distractionsthat prevented claimant's awareness of the dangerous condition. Step1404 indicates that the defense may not apply if there were nodistractions. If there were distractions, decision point 1406 assesseswhat the source of the distraction was related to the insured. Thedefense may not apply if the source of the distraction was related tothe insured, as indicated by step 1408. If the source was not related tothe insured, the defense may apply, as shown by step 1410.

As used herein, a “distraction” refers to a fact, condition, orcircumstance that may divert the attention of an ordinarily prudentperson from discovering or seeing an existing dangerous condition.Generally, when a claimant does not discover and avoid an obviouspremises defect, the claimant may be held to be contributorily negligentas a matter of law. However, this rule may not apply when there is adistraction. The distraction may only excuse the insured's fault and maynot create fault on the part of the insured.

For example, the most commonly recognized type of distraction may be adisplay or advertisement. However, some displays of common goods may notbe so distracting as to excuse temporary inattentiveness. A personlooking at a display may be required to exercise reasonable care. Merelybeing in a store does not constitute a distraction. Another personwalking normally is not recognized as a legal distraction. Thedistraction theory may not apply when the distraction was self-inducedor when the object was in plain view. Furthermore, a distraction appliesonly in contributory negligence jurisdictions. In comparative negligencejurisdictions, distraction has been incorporated into the comparativenegligence scheme.

In one embodiment, the failure to use due care defense may be applied ina situation in which claimant's movements were too fast for conditions.FIG. 15 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure touse due care defense to the claimant's pace according to one embodiment.Decision point 1502 assesses the pace of the claimant at the time of theaccident. FIG. 15 provides four choices for the pace: running, quicklystriding, normal pace, and slow. If the pace was running, then step 1504indicates that the defense may apply. The defense may not apply if thepace is normal or slow, as steps 1506 and 1508 indicate, respectively.If the pace was quickly striding, then decision point 1510 assesseswhether the pace was faster than prudent. If the pace was faster thanprudent, then step 1512 shows that the defense may apply. If the pacewas not faster than prudent, then step 1514 shows that the defense maynot apply.

In one embodiment, the failure to use due care defense may be applied insituations relating to a claimant's walking aid. FIG. 16 is a flow chartillustrating the application of the failure to use due care defense tothe claimant's use of a walking aid according to one embodiment.Decision point 1602 assesses whether the claimant normally uses awalking aid. A walking aid may include a prosthetic device. If theclaimant does not normally use a walking aid, step 1604 indicates thatthe defense may not apply. If the claimant does normally use a walkingaid, then decision point 1606 assesses if the claimant was using thedevice at the time of the accident. If so, decision point 1608 assesseswhether the use of the device contributed to the accident. If use of thedevice did contribute, then the defense may apply as shown by step 1610.Step 1612 shows that the defense may not apply if use of the device didnot contribute to the accident.

Decision point 1614 assesses whether failure to use the devicecontributed to the accident if the claimant was not using the device atthe time of the accident. If failure to use the device contributed tothe accident, then the defense may apply, as shown by step 1616. Step1618 indicates that the defense may not apply if the failure to use thedevice did not contribute.

The failure to heed warning defense may apply when the claimant wasadequately warned of the dangerous condition and the claimant continuedwith the action that was the cause of the accident. A specific warningregarding the dangerous condition is required for the failure to heedwarning defense, unlike the assumption of risk defense.

FIG. 17 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure toheed warning defense according to one embodiment. Decision point 1702assesses whether the claimant received adequate warning of the dangerouscondition. Generally, a warning may have to be explicit to qualify asadequate. An adequate warning may be one that is understandable and onethat meets the requirements of the jurisdiction. If the warning was notadequate, then the defense may not be applicable, as indicated by step1704. If the warning was adequate, decision point 1706 assesses whetherthe claimant heeded the warning. If the claimant failed to heed thewarning, then step 1708 indicates that the defense may apply. A claimantmay have failed to heed a warning if the claimant received, understood,and ignored the warning. In one embodiment, the warning may be requiredto be specific (e.g., directed to the hazard in question). Step 1710indicates that the defense may not be applicable if the claimant heededthe warning.

An example of a situation in which the failure to heed warning defensemay apply may include a claimant running on a slippery floor that had asign warning of the dangerous condition. Another example may include aclaimant who after being told that a retaining rope was needed, failedto use one and fell.

In one embodiment, “forgetfulness” of a known danger may be a defense.Forgetfulness may be distinguishable from being distracted from thedanger. For example, forgetfulness of a known danger, without anydistraction, may not excuse failure to exercise reasonable care forone's own safety.

In one embodiment, the implied assumption of risk defense may apply whena claimant is aware of a dangerous condition or activity, butvoluntarily exposes himself/herself to the dangerous condition orparticipates in the activity. FIG. 18 is a flow chart illustrating theapplication of the implied assumption of risk defense according to oneembodiment. Decision point 1802 assesses whether the claimant had fullknowledge of the dangerous condition. If the claimant did not have fullknowledge of the dangerous condition, then the defense may not beapplicable as indicated by step 1804. If the claimant did have fullknowledge of the dangerous condition, decision point 1806 assesseswhether the claimant proceeded deliberately. As used herein, “proceededdeliberately” may be defined as the claimant proceeding with fullknowledge of the existence of a risk and appreciation of the extent ofthe danger and voluntarily exposing himself/herself to that danger. Ifthe claimant proceeded deliberately, step 1808 indicates that thedefense may be applicable. If the claimant did not proceed deliberately,step 1810 indicates that the defense may not apply.

Tables 18 and 19 provide evaluations of the claimant's knowledge of thedangerous condition and premises. The evaluations may provide anestimate of the degree to which the implied assumption of riskinfluences liability. Table 18 may evaluate the claimant's familiaritywith the premises by considering four characteristics of the claimant:whether the claimant had ever been on the premises before, whether theclaimant had ever noticed the dangerous condition, how often theclaimant is on the premises, and temporal proximity of the claimant'svisits to premises. Table 19 evaluates the claimant's familiarity withthe dangerous condition with three considerations: whether the claimanthad ever noticed the dangerous condition, how often the claimant is onthe premises, and temporal proximity of the claimant's visits topremises. Expert claims adjusters may assign estimates of the effect onliability of an implied assumption of risk defense based on variousfamiliarity determinations.

TABLE 18 FAMILIARITY WITH PREMISES Ever Ever been noticed on dangerousTemporal Familiarity premises condition How often ProximityDetermination No — — — Not Yes No — — Not Yes Yes Once — Somewhat YesYes More than More than Somewhat twice 3 mo Yes Yes More than Less thanFamiliar twice 3 mo Yes Yes Many — Very

TABLE 19 FAMILIARITY WITH DANGEROUS CONDITION Ever noticed TemporalFamiliarity condition How often Proximity Determination No — — Not YesOnce — Somewhat Yes More than twice More than 3 mo Somewhat Yes Morethan twice Less than 3 mo Familiar Yes Many — Very

Examples of situations where the implied assumption of risk defense mayapply may include attending a baseball game and sitting in the lowersection in the stadium/arena, participating in a “full contact” footballgame, participating in a wrestling match, installing a satellite dish ona sloped roof, cleaning windows on a tall building, or walking on an icerink in regular shoes.

In one embodiment, the improper lookout, open and obvious, or plain viewdoctrine defenses may apply if the claimant fails to observe where theclaimant is going so as to avoid an obvious dangerous condition. Ingeneral, an entrant to a premises has a legal duty to look where he orshe is going in order to observe obvious dangerous conditions on thepremises. These defenses may depend on evaluation of the visibility, thelighting, the contrast of a dangerous condition with its surroundings,the size of the dangerous condition, the claimant's familiarity with thedangerous condition, and any obstructions of the dangerous condition.The improper lookout, open and obvious, and plain view doctrine defensesmay be distinguished by the degree of obviousness of a dangerouscondition. In general, a lower degree of obviousness may be required forapplication of the improper lookout defense than for the open andobvious defense. Generally, the open and obvious defense may require alower degree of obviousness than the plain view doctrine defense.

Generally, a proprietor has a duty to keep a premises safe for invitees.However, the claimant may be required to avoid the effect of aninsured's negligence if one of two conditions is met. First, the effectmay become apparent through the exercise of ordinary care by theclaimant. Second, the claimant should have learned of the effect throughthe exercise of ordinary care. For example, a claimant may not recoverfor a slip and fall on a foreign substance if the substance was apparentto the claimant or if by the exercise of ordinary care the claimantshould have learned of it. However, a claimant's duty to keep a lookoutfor dangers may not be absolute or unlimited. For example, a claimantmay not be negligent in failing to look out for dangers or defects wherean ordinarily prudent person would have no reason to apprehend danger.

When applying the improper lookout defense, the degree of lookoutrequired of a claimant may depend on the type of premises involved. Aclaimant may not be required to continuously look for dangerousconditions. For example, a person in a commercial building may not berequired to use the same degree of lookout as on a public street.

FIG. 19 is a flow chart illustrating the application of the failure tokeep lookout defense according to one embodiment. Decision point 1902assesses whether the claimant's line of sight was obstructed. If theclaimant's line of sight was obstructed, then the dangerous conditioncould not have been apparent so the defense may not be applicable, asshown by step 1904. If the claimant's line of sight was not obstructed,the size of the dangerous condition is assessed at decision point 1906.

In one embodiment, size may be defined with respect to the perception ofan ordinary, reasonable, prudent (ORP) person. An ORP may not beexpected to see a dangerous condition that is smaller than a particularsize, the “ORP” size. For example, the ORP size may be between about 2inches and about 3 inches, in some embodiments. In other embodiments,the ORP size may be between about 3 and about 5 inches. In anotherembodiment, the ORP size may be less than about 2 inches. Size may alsobe divided into several categories to aid in the evaluation of adefense. In an embodiment, size may be divided into small, medium, andlarge categories. For example, “small” may be defined as less than orequal to about 4 inches. “Medium” may be defined as greater than about 4inches, but less than about 12 inches. “Large” may be defined as greaterthan about 12 inches.

At decision point 1906, if the size of the dangerous condition is lessthan the ORP size, then the defense may not be applicable, as shown bystep 1908. If the dangerous condition is greater than or equal to theORP size, decision point 1910 assesses the lighting. Step 1912 indicatesthat if there is no lighting the defense may not apply. If the lightingis low, decision point 1920 assesses contrast. The term “contrast”refers to the difference in color or brightness between the dangerouscondition and its surroundings. Step 1924 indicates that the defense maynot be applicable if the contrast is low. If the contrast is medium,decision point 1926 assesses the size of the dangerous condition. Step1922 indicates that the defense may apply if the contrast is high.

In addition, if at decision point 1910 the lighting is high or medium,decision point 1914 assesses contrast. If the contrast is high ormedium, then steps 1916 and 1918 indicate that the defense may apply.Decision point 1926 assesses the size of the dangerous condition if thecontrast is low or none under high or medium lighting conditions or ifthe contrast is medium under low lighting conditions. The defense mayapply if the size of the dangerous condition is large or medium, asindicated by step 1928. If the size of the dangerous condition is small,step 1930 indicates that the defense may not apply.

In one embodiment, “plain view doctrine” defense may reduce or eliminatea claimant's recovery from an insured. The plain view doctrine imposes aduty on a person to look where the person is walking and to see largeobjects in plain view. The large objects may be required to be wherethey are customarily placed and expected to be. In an embodiment, theopen and obvious defense also requires a claimant to look where theclaimant is walking and to see obvious objects in plain view.

As in the improper lookout defense, if the claimant's line of sight wasobstructed, then the open and obvious defense may not apply. If the lineof sight was not obstructed, then the open and obvious defense may applyif the dangerous condition was clearly visible. Whether a dangerouscondition is clearly visible may depend on its size, the lighting, andthe contrast of the condition with its surroundings. For example, thedangerous condition may be clearly visible when the improper lookoutdefense applies for an object greater than or equal to the ORP size inFIG. 19. In an embodiment, a dangerous condition may be a large objector obstruction.

Examples of dangerous conditions that may be considered open and obviousmay include a light pole (due to size, visibility, and eye level view),a column (due to size, visibility, and eye level view), orange cone (dueto contrast, moderate size), blinking light (due to contrast), and apainted curb (due to contrast). Examples of dangerous conditions thatmay not be considered open and obvious may include wet stairs, spilledfood or drinks on a floor having a similar color as the spilled food ordrink, a partially obscured object, an obscured or hidden sidewalkdefect, or obscured or hidden ice (e.g., ice covered by water or snow).

In some embodiments, even if the large object or obstruction is clearlyvisible, the plain view doctrine may not apply if the object orobstruction is not in a customary location. For example, the plain viewdoctrine may apply when a claimant falls into a conversation pit in awell-lit library, the steps into the pit are multicolored, and there isa railing around the pit. Another example is a waiter spilling a bowl ofred sauce on white flooring in a well-lit restaurant in an open area.The open and obvious defense may apply if the claimant saw the accidentand walks through the area and slips in the sauce.

The “knowledge of danger” defense may apply when the claimant hadknowledge of the danger or defect that caused the injury. For example,an invitee may be found to have been negligent if the invitee is injuredby an obvious defect. The claimant may be expected to have observed andavoided the defect in the exercise of reasonable care under thecircumstances. The requirement of observing and avoiding the defect mayapply in situations in which the claimant should have appreciated thedanger the defect presented.

Daily and commonplace use may raise a presumption of knowledge, orconstructive knowledge, on the part of a person using defectivepremises. Similarly, repeated visits to a premises over a period of timemay create an inference that the injured person should have known of theexistence of the dangerous condition. The claimant's previous experiencewith the same kind of premises in which the claimant was injured mayalso create a presumption of knowledge of the type of dangerousconditions to be expected.

The presence of the claimant in the defective premises before theaccident may not preclude the claimant from recovery due to injuriesreceived in the defective premises. Recovery may be possible unless hisor her failure to observe the defect amounts to a lack of care which anordinarily prudent person would exercise under the circumstances.

An invitee has a right to rely on a premises owner to exercisereasonable care to keep a premises in a reasonably safe condition. Theright to rely on the owner may vary with the nature of the premises. Forexample, one who enters a commercial premises may be entitled to expectthat the owner has made greater preparations to secure the safety ofvisitors than for a private residence. A customer on a business premisesmay assume that the proprietor will exercise reasonable care toascertain the condition of the premises. In addition, the customer mayalso assume that if the proprietor discovers any dangerous condition,the proprietor may either correct the condition and make it reasonablysafe or give warning of the dangerous condition.

In one embodiment, a claimant may not have the right to rely on theowner of a premises when a claimant fails to avoid a defective ordangerous condition that the claimant knows or should have known about.A customer may not have the right to proceed blindly through a businesspremises in disregard of obvious dangers. However, there are exceptionsto applying the right to rely on owner defense. For example, aclaimant's lack of attention or forgetfulness may be excused by adistraction. Another exception is that the claimant may not appreciatethe risks of encountering the dangerous condition in spite of knowing ofthe condition.

In one embodiment, the “step in the dark rule” may apply when a claimantis in an unfamiliar situation in which darkness renders the use ofeyesight ineffective to define surroundings. In such a situation, aclaimant may not be justified in proceeding further without firstfinding out where he/she is going and what may be the obstructions tosafe progress. However, a claimant may be justified in proceeding understressful circumstances. Darkness by itself may be a warning to proceedeither with extreme caution or not at all. Proceeding in the darkrequires greater care than walking in light. A characterization ofreasonable care in the darkness depends on all the circumstances of thecase.

The step in the dark rule and its variations may not apply in severalsituations. These situations may include: where the claimant is familiarwith the premises, when the darkness may not be considered impenetrable,when the claimant does not follow a path of his or her own choosing,when the claimant takes reasonable precautions to light the way orotherwise to insure his or her safety, when the claimant has a right toassume that the area over which he or she travels is free of defects andobstructions, when the circumstances are such that an ordinary prudentperson may be lulled into a false sense of safety, and when there hasbeen a negligent failure to illuminate a structure which is dangerous indarkness, and such failure created additional dangerous conditionsunknown to the claimant.

The step in the dark rule merely raises an inference of lack of prudenceand ordinary care on the claimant's part. The inference of negligencemay not be made if conflicting evidence as to the intentional nature ofthe step in the dark, the lighting conditions and degree of darkness,the nature and appearance of the premises, and other circumstances existto disprove a voluntary, deliberate step into unknown darkness.

In one embodiment, “youth” may be used by the claimant as a defenseagainst contributory or comparative negligence. Very young children,generally less than 7 years old, may not be guilty of contributorynegligence. Children of an intermediate age, generally 7 to 14, may bepresumed incapable of negligence. However, the presumption may berebuttable. The capacity for negligence of a child of an intermediateage is generally determined by the facts of a situation. Older childrenmay be presumed to be capable of negligence.

If a child has the legal capacity for negligence, the relevant facts indetermining whether the child was negligent may include his or her age,maturity, intelligence, training, discretion, and alertness. The childmay not be held to the same standard of care as an adult. The child maybe required to exercise the same degree of care for his or her ownsafety as ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity,discretion, knowledge, and experience.

In most states, a parent's negligence may not be imputed to a very youngchild to bar or reduce the child's recovery against a third party.However, a parent's individual claim, for example, medical expensesresulting from the child's injury, may be reduced or barred by theparent's negligence.

Table 20 lists exemplary bars to recovery according to one embodiment. Abar to recovery may be applied to eliminate the recovery of theclaimant.

TABLE 20 BARS TO RECOVERY Bars to recovery Express assumption of riskInherently dangerous condition or activity Governmental Immunity Noticestatutes Statutes of limitations

In one embodiment, “express assumption of risk” may bar a claimant fromrecovering from an insured. In express assumption of risk, a claimantthat expressly agrees to accept a risk of harm caused by an insured'snegligent or reckless conduct may not recover for such harm. Expressassumption of risk may not apply if the agreement is invalid due tobeing contrary to public policy. For example, the owner of a roller rinkmay require patrons to sign an agreement that holds the owner harmlessfor any injuries that patrons may incur while using the rink. Such anagreement may be invalid because it may be contrary to public policy.

In certain embodiments, a claimant may be barred from recovering from aninsured if the claimant is injured while participating in an inherentlydangerous activity. An “inherently dangerous condition or activity” maybe described as an activity in which danger is inherent at all times.The danger may be so inherent that special precautions may be requiredto prevent injury.

In one embodiment, “governmental immunity” may bar a claimant fromrecovering from an insured that is a governmental entity. Governmentalimmunity may be a bar under the Political Sub-Division Tort claims Act.The Act may negate liability for a governmental agency or municipality.For example, a governmental body may make itself immune. For example,the claimant may be barred from recovery if a political entity isengaged in an administrative or policy activity. However, the claimantmay have a right of action against a political entity if the entity isengaged in what would normally be considered a business activity. Inaddition, political immunity may not apply if the care, custody, andcontrol of premises are in the possession of the local agency. Atrespasser may be barred from recovery from a governmental entity.

In one embodiment, the scope of the immunity may change by jurisdiction.For example, in Pennsylvania a claimant may be required to firstestablish the dangerous condition that created a reasonably foreseeablerisk. The claimant may then be required to show that the local agencyresponsible for the dangerous condition had actual notice or couldreasonably be charged with notice of the dangerous condition. The noticemay be required to be at a sufficient time prior to the event so thatmeasures might be taken to protect against the dangerous condition.

In one embodiment, notice statutes may bar a claimant from recoveringfrom an insured party. “Notice Statutes” may require a claimant to filenotice of a claim with a municipality before initiating suit. Amunicipality must have received prior written notice of the dangerouscondition. For example, in New York State, notice must be filed within90 days of the date of claimant's harm.

In one embodiment, a Statute of Limitation may bar recovery of aclaimant from an insured. As used herein, a “Statute of Limitation” isthe time within which a claimant must file suit according to statute. AStatute of Limitation for infants may begin at the age of majority. AStatute of Limitation for filing suit against municipalities may beshortened.

In one embodiment, the total liability assessed to the insured and theclaimant may be estimated by considering the negligence of the insuredand defenses and bars that apply to the claimant. If no defenses or barsapply, the total liability of the insured is equal to the liability ofthe insured due to negligence. If one or more bars apply, the claimantmay not recover any damages.

The calculation of liability depends upon whether a jurisdiction adheresto the contributory or comparative negligence doctrine if one or moredefenses apply. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, theapplicability of one or more defenses acts as a complete bar to recoveryby the claimant.

However, in a jurisdiction that follows comparative negligence, theapplicability of one or more defenses may reduce the liability of aninsured rather than act as a complete bar to recovery. In oneembodiment, a defense may have an estimate of the effect on liabilityassociated with various determinations of the applicability of thedefense. For example, the failure to use due care defense applied to theclaimant's pace has five possible combinations of answers to thedecision points in the embodiment depicted in FIG. 15. Steps 1506, 1508,and 1514 represent three outcomes in which the defense may not apply.The effect on liability associated with these outcomes may be 0%. Steps1504 and 1512 represent outcomes in which the defense may apply. Steps1504 and 1512 may be associated with a nonzero estimate of liability.

In one embodiment, each of the outcomes in which a defense applies maybe associated with the same effect on liability. Alternatively, theoutcomes may be associated with a different effect on liability. Forexample, the outcome in step 1504 may be associated with a higherestimate of liability than the outcome in step 1512. The claimant mayhave a greater culpability at step 1504 than at step 1512 because it ismore dangerous to run than it is to quickly stride. Experienced claimsadjusters may determine the estimates of liability for the combinationsof outcomes. For example, the liability estimate at step 1504 may be 20%and the liability estimate at step 1512 may be 10%.

Adjusting the liability based one or more defenses may be done in anumber of ways depending on the jurisdiction. For example, a directshift of liability may be used in a comparative negligence jurisdiction.In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, a portion of the liabilityassessed to the insured may be shifted to the claimant based on theapplicability of one or more defenses. In an embodiment, the effect onliability of all of the defenses may be additive. That is, if twodefenses apply with an effect on liability of 20% each, then a total of40% of the liability may be shifted to the claimant. In otherembodiments, effects on liability of certain defenses may not bedirectly additive. That is, if a particular combination of defensesapply, the resulting liability shift may be greater than or less thanthe liability shift that would result from addition of the effect onliability associated with each defense. For example, if an open andobvious defense has an effect on liability of 30% and an impaired visiondefense has an effect on liability of 15%, the total liability shiftthat results may only be 40% since the two defenses are not entirelyindependent of one another. Likewise, in some instances, the totalliability shift may be greater than the sum of the individual effects onliability. If the total effect of the defenses on liability is greaterthan 100%, then the liability of the insured may be 0%.

Table 21 includes investigative questions about characteristics relatingto determining defenses and bars according to one embodiment. Thecolumns in Table 20 correspond to defenses and bars listed in Table 17.An “X” in a column indicates that an investigative question may apply tothe defense or bar in the column.

TABLE 21 INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS RELATING TODEFENSES AND BARS FOR FLOOR, STAIRWAY, OR SIDEWALK SLIP, TRIP, OR FALLACCIDENTS Defenses Express Open assump- Inher- and tion ently obvious ofrisk danger- (plain Failure Alcohol Implied Claimant Statutes (e.g. aous Im- view Failure to choose or assump- Failure created Govern- of“hold condi- proper doc- to use alternate Drug tion to heed conditionmental Notice limita- harmless” tion or Questions lookout trine) duecare path use of risk warning or defect Immunity statutes tions clause)activity Floor Accidents Date X X Time X Exact location X X X X X X X ofaccident on premises Why claimant X X X X on premises Claimant X X X X XX X X familiar with premises Describe X X X X X movements from entranceonto premises to accident location Determine X X X X X X X exactlocation on premises where incident occurred Describe conditioncomplained of What caused X X X X X X X X X the condition Where was X XX X X claimant looking prior to fall Was claimant X X X X X talking toanyone Was claimant X X X X X X X carrying anything Was claimant X X X XX X in a hurry Was claimant X X X X X X X X walking or running Type ofshoes X X X X claimant was wearing Any children or X X X X X animalswith person Does claimant X X X X X X X X wear glasses- wearing at timeStairways Any defect on X X X X X X X steps-describe Handrails X X Wasstairway X X X X X steep, straight or curved Describe X X X X lighting-natural, artificial, adequacy Were there any X X X X X X X obstructionson stair-describe If weather X X X X X X factor, obtain details ofweather conditions Was claimant X X X X X going up or down stairs Wasclaimant X X X X X X X X running, walking, carrying anything Describe XX X X lighting- natural, artificial, adequacy

A claims organization may employ an experienced claims adjuster using aknowledge acquisition utility to determine liability, defenses, and/orbars associated with a given set of characteristics of an accident. Forexample, a claims organization may employ an experienced claims adjusterusing a knowledge acquisition utility to provide estimates of liabilityassociated with various sets of characteristics of an accident. Theestimates of liability may include estimates of the effect on liabilityof various defenses and/or bars.

In some embodiments, a user of a system for estimating liability may beprovided with a legal reference screen. The legal reference screen mayprovide the user with legal information for a jurisdiction in which theaccident occurred. The legal information may be pertinent to determiningliability in the accident. In an embodiment, the legal referenceinformation may be accessed from a subscription legal reference service,such as the Westlaw legal information service, available from West Groupof St. Paul, Minn. For example, access to information pertaining togovernmental immunity, joint and several liability, assumption of risk,statutes of limitations, notice statutes, building codes, Americans withDisabilities Acts standards, and/or case law may be provided.

Various embodiments further include receiving or storing instructionsand/or data implemented in accordance with the foregoing descriptionupon a carrier medium. Suitable carrier media include storage media ormemory media such as magnetic or optical media, e.g., disk or CD-ROM, aswell as signals such as electrical, electromagnetic, or digital signalsconveyed via a communication medium such as networks 102 and/or 104shown in FIG. 1 and/or a wireless link.

Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects ofthe invention may be apparent to those skilled in the art in view ofthis description. Accordingly, this description is to be construed asillustrative only and is for the purpose of teaching those skilled inthe art the general manner of carrying out the invention. It is to beunderstood that the forms of the invention shown and described hereinare to be taken as the presently preferred embodiments. Elements andmaterials may be substituted for those illustrated and described herein,parts and processes may be reversed, and certain features of theinvention may be utilized independently, all as would be apparent to oneskilled in the art after having the benefit of this description of theinvention. Changes may be made in the elements described herein withoutdeparting from the spirit and scope of the invention as described in thefollowing claims.

1. A computer-implemented method of estimating a contribution of adefense to premises liability, comprising: providing to a computersystem a set of characteristics of a premises accident that has actuallyoccurred, the premises accident giving rise to premises liability of alandowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in thepremises accident as a result of at least one condition that existed ona premises; estimating, from at least one of the characteristics of theaccident that has actually occurred, the contribution of two or moredefenses to the premises liability of the landowner or possessor of thepremises to a party injured in the premises accident as a result of theat least one condition that existed on the premises while the injuredparty was on the premises, the estimated contribution of at least one ofthe two or more defenses to premises liability being expressed as aproportion of liability; and estimating a premises liability of thelandowner or possessor to the party injured in the premises accident,wherein estimating the premises liability includes the computer systemperforming an adjustment to the premises liability based on theestimated contribution of at least two of the defenses to premisesliability, the estimated premises liability being expressed as aproportion of a total liability for the premises accident, wherein atleast two of the defenses are not independent of one another, whereinthe adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contributionof the at least two defenses is greater than or less than the adjustmentthat would result from adding the individual contributions of the atleast two defenses.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimatedcontribution of the two or more defenses to premises liability isexpressed as a percentage.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein theestimated contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.
 4. The methodof claim 1, wherein at least one of the defenses to premises liabilityis selected from the group consisting of: a failure to keep a properlookout defense, an open and obvious defense, a plain view doctrinedefense, a failure to use due care defense, a failure to choose analternate path defense, a claimant under the influence defense, animplied assumption of risk defense, a failure to heed warning defense, aclaimant created the condition or defect defense, a right to rely onowner defense, a knowledge of danger requirement defense, aforgetfulness defense, a distraction defense, a choice of paths ruledefense, a disability defense, a youth defense, and a step in the darkdefense.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least two of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense,wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due caredefense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.6. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of atleast one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determiningthe contribution of a failure to use due care defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the failure to use due care defensecomprises determining whether the claimant should have been aware of ahazard.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution ofat least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determiningthe contribution of a failure to use due care defenses, whereindetermining the contribution of the failure to use due care defensecomprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available tothe claimant.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due caredefense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use duecare defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a carelesschoice.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution ofat least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determiningthe contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining thecontribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whethera claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises was awareof a hazard on the premises.
 10. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate pathdefense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate pathdefense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowneror possessor of the premises should have been aware of a hazard on thepremises.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of an alternate path defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprisesdetermining whether an alternate path choice was available to aclaimant.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of an alternate path defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprisesdetermining whether a claimant made a careless choice of path.
 13. Themethod of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least oneof the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defensecomprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner orpossessor of the premises had full knowledge of a hazard on thepremises.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense,wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of riskdefense comprises determining whether a claimant proceeded deliberately.15. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of atleast one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determiningthe contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defensecomprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner orpossessor of the premises had adequate warning of a dangerous conditionon the premises.
 16. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warningdefense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heedwarning defense comprises determining whether a claimant heeded thewarning.
 17. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of a failure to keep a proper lookoutdefense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to keep aproper lookout defense comprises determining whether a dangerouscondition on the premises was apparent or whether a claimant against thelandowner or possessor of the premises saw the dangerous condition. 18.The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at leastone of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of an open and obvious defense with respect to a dangerouscondition on the premises, wherein determining the contribution of theopen and obvious defense comprises determining lighting at a location ofthe accident.
 19. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defensewith respect to a dangerous condition on the premises, whereindetermining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprisesdetermining contrast of the dangerous condition.
 20. The method of claim1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defensesto premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an openand obvious defense with respect to a dangerous condition on thepremises, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obviousdefense comprises determining size of the dangerous condition.
 21. Themethod of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least oneof the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of an open and obvious defense with respect to a dangerouscondition on the premises, wherein determining the contribution of theopen and obvious defense comprises determining whether the dangerouscondition on the premises was obstructed, or whether an obstruction waslarge.
 22. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution ofat least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determiningthe contribution of a claimant created condition or defect defense,wherein determining the contribution of the claimant created conditionor defect defense comprises determining whether a claimant against thelandowner or possessor of the premises was solely or partiallyresponsible for a dangerous condition or defect on the premises.
 23. Themethod of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least oneof the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determiningthe contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprisesdetermining whether the premises is commercial or residential, whether aclaimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises failed toavoid a defective or dangerous condition on the premises of which theclaimant knew or should have known.
 24. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely onowner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to relyon owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant against thelandowner or possessor of the premises failed to avoid a defective ordangerous condition on the premises of which the claimant knew or shouldhave known.
 25. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on ownerdefense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely onowner defense comprises determining whether there was a distraction. 26.The method of claim 1, wherein determining the contribution of at leastone of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determiningthe contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprisesdetermining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of thepremises did not appreciate the risks of a dangerous condition on thepremises.
 27. The method of claim 1, wherein determining thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of dangerrequirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of theknowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether adefect on the premises was patent or obvious.
 28. The method of claim 1,wherein determining the contribution of at least one of the defenses topremises liability comprises determining the contribution of a knowledgeof danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution ofthe knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determiningwhether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premisesvisited a location of the accident for daily and commonplace use. 29.The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at leastone of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirementdefense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowneror possessor of the premises had made repeated visits the location ofthe accident.
 30. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of dangerrequirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of theknowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether aclaimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises had previousexperience with premises of the same kind as a premises at which theaccident took place.
 31. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense,wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defensecomprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner orpossessor of the premises had knowledge of a dangerous condition on thepremises.
 32. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprisesdetermining whether a distraction was present at a location of theaccident.
 33. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of a distraction defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the distraction defense comprisesdetermining whether a condition or circumstance diverted a claimant'sattention.
 34. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths ruledefense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of pathsrule defense comprises determining whether a claimant against thelandowner or possessor of the premises selected an unsafe path on thepremises.
 35. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defensecomprises determining whether there was evidence of a safe course on thepremises.
 36. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defenses, whereindetermining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defensecomprises determining whether there was evidence of a dangerous courseon the premises.
 37. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of the choice of paths ruledefense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of pathsrule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of factswhich would put a reasonable person on notice of danger.
 38. The methodof claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of thedefenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution ofa choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution ofthe choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether aclaimant had actual knowledge of danger.
 39. The method of claim 1,wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses topremises liability comprises determining the contribution relating to adisability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to thedisability defense comprises determining whether a claimant had aphysical disability.
 40. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense,wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defensecomprises determining whether a claimant was frail or elderly.
 41. Themethod of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least oneof the defenses comprises determining the contribution relating to adisability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to thedisability defense comprises determining whether a claimant waspregnant.
 42. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution relating to a disability defense, whereindetermining the contribution relating to the disability defensecomprises determining whether a claimant put forth appropriate effort toprotect the claimant's safety.
 43. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution relating to adisability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to thedisability defense comprises determining whether a claimant avoided aposition likely to be dangerous to the claimant in light of theclaimant's disability.
 44. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determiningan age of a claimant.
 45. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determiningmaturity of a claimant.
 46. the method of claim 1, wherein estimatingthe contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determiningintelligence of a claimant.
 47. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense,wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprisesdetermining training of a claimant.
 48. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense,wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprisesdetermining discretion of a claimant.
 49. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense,wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprisesdetermining alertness of a claimant.
 50. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense,wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprisesdetermining whether a claimant has the capacity for negligence.
 51. Themethod of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of the at leastone of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution ofthe youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised adegree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised bychildren of the same age.
 52. The method of claim 1, wherein estimatingthe contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determiningwhether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safetyas ordinarily exercised by children with the same capacity fornegligence.
 53. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determiningwhether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safetyas ordinarily exercised by children with the same discretion.
 54. Themethod of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least oneof the defenses to premises liability comprises determining thecontribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution ofthe youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised adegree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised bychildren with the same experience.
 55. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premisesliability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate pathdefense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate pathdefense comprises determining whether darkness rendered use of eyesightineffective to define a claimant's surroundings.
 56. The method of claim1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defensesto premises liability comprises determining the contribution of analternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of thealternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant'sactions were justified.
 57. The method of claim 1, wherein estimatingthe contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liabilitycomprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense,wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defensecomprises determining whether any special stress of circumstancesinhibited a claimant from finding out obstructions to his or her safeprogress.
 58. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contributionof at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprisesdetermining the contribution of an alternate path defense, whereindetermining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprisesdetermining whether a claimant was familiar with the premises.
 59. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the estimated contribution to the two or moredefenses to premises liability is estimated from knowledge obtained fromexperienced claims adjusters.
 60. A system, comprising: a CPU; a datamemory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU,wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computerprograms executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs areexecutable to implement a method for estimating a contribution of adefense to premises liability, the method comprising: providing to acomputer system a set of characteristics of a premises accident that hasactually occurred, the premises accident giving rise to premisesliability of a landowner or possessor of the premises to a party injuredin the premises accident as a result of at least one condition thatexisted on a premises; and estimating, from at least one of thecharacteristics of the accident that has actually occurred, thecontribution of two or more defenses to the premises liability of thelandowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in thepremises accident as a result of the at least one condition that existedon the premises while the injured party was on the premises, theestimated contribution of at least one of the two or more defenses topremises liability being expressed as a proportion of liability; andestimating a premises liability of the landowner or possessor to theparty injured in the premises accident , wherein estimating the premisesliability includes performing an adjustment to the premises liabilitybased on the estimated contribution of at least two of the defenses topremises liability, the estimated premises liability being expressed asa proportion of a total liability for the premises accident, wherein atleast two of the defenses are not independent of one another, whereinthe adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contributionof the at least two defenses is greater than or less than the adjustmentthat would result from adding the individual contributions of the atleast two defenses.
 61. A computer readable storage medium comprisingprogram instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instructionsare computer-executable to implement a method for estimating acontribution of a defense to premises liability, the method comprising:providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of a premisesaccident that has actually occurred, the premises accident giving riseto premises liability of a landowner or possessor of the premises to aparty injured in the premises accident as a result of at least onecondition that existed on a premises; and estimating, from at least oneof the characteristics of the accident that has actually occurred, thecontribution of two or more defenses to the premises liability of thelandowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in thepremises accident as a result of the at least one condition that existedon the premises while the injured party was on the premises, theestimated contribution of at least one of the two or more defenses topremises liability being expressed as a proportion of liability; andestimating a premises liability of the landowner or possessor to theparty injured in the premises accident, wherein estimating the premisesliability includes performing an adjustment to the premises liabilitybased on the estimated contribution of at least two of the defenses topremises liability, the estimated premises liability being expressed asa proportion of a total liability for the premises accident, wherein atleast two of the defenses are not independent of one another, whereinthe adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contributionof the at least two defenses is greater than or less than the adjustmentthat would result from adding the individual contributions of the atleast two defenses.
 62. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thepremises liability includes adjusting the liability based on ajurisdiction of the premises accident.
 63. The method of claim 1,wherein the adjustment to premises liability based on the estimatedcontribution of the at least two defenses is greater than the adjustmentthat would result from adding the individual contributions of the atleast two defenses.
 64. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment topremises liability based on the estimated contribution of the at leasttwo defenses is less than the adjustment that would result from addingthe individual contributions of the at least two defenses.
 65. Themethod of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least oneof the defenses comprises: associating two or more outcomes in which oneor more of the defenses applies with an effect on liability; storing thetwo or more outcomes in the computer system; and the computer systemautomatically determining, at one or more decision points, which one ofthe two or more outcomes occurred.
 66. The method of claim 1, whereinestimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses comprises:evaluating the injured party's familiarity with the premises; andestimating an effect of an implied assumption of risk defense based onthe injured party's familiarity with the premises.
 67. The method ofclaim 66, wherein evaluating the injured party's familiarity with thepremises comprises: determining whether the injured party had ever beenon the premises before; determining whether the injured party ant hadever noticed the dangerous condition; determining how often the injuredparty is on the premises; determining temporal proximity of the injuredparty's visits to premises; and assigning an estimate of the effect onliability of an implied assumption of risk defense based on at least oneof the determinations.
 68. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating thecontribution of at least one defense comprises: evaluating the injuredparty's familiarity with the dangerous condition; and estimating aneffect of an implied assumption of risk defense based on the injuredparty's familiarity with the dangerous condition.
 69. The method ofclaim 68, wherein evaluating the injured party's familiarity with thedangerous condition comprises: determining whether the injured party hadever noticed the dangerous condition; determining how often the injuredparty is on the premises; determining temporal proximity of the injuredparty's visits to premises; and assigning an estimate of the effect onliability of an implied assumption of risk defense based on at least oneof the determinations.